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 .
The Amendment filed October 27, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4 are pending. Claims 1-4 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai et al. (JP 2016174535 A; Oct. 6, 2016; made of record by applicant, see English Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kawai discloses a method for producing a modified starchy powder comprising a step of adding 0.005-3 parts by mass of a pH regulating agent (pages 3-4), which can be sodium carbonate (See Example 1, page 6 of English Translation) to 100 parts by mass of a starch powder to obtain a mixture (Example 1 page 6), thus overlapping the claimed range of 0.2-5 parts by mass of a monovalent or divalent metal salt to 100 parts by mass of a starch powder. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05 I)
Kawai further teaches that the mixture is heated to a temperature of 70 C, thus falling within the claimed range of 70-130 C (Example 1 on page 6 of English Translation).
With respect to the modified powder being a modified cereal flour, Kawai teaches that the raw material for the modified powder can be corn starch, which is a cereal starch (page 3 para 3, Examples 30-32). With respect to the corn starch being a cereal flour, Kawai further teaches that the modified starch can be used as a flour (Examples 33-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use corn flour as the raw material as Kawai clearly teaches that corn starch can be used and suggested the use of a flour.
Further, it would have been obvious to use corn flour depending on the desired nutrition and properties of the modified product as flour comprises fiber and protein along with the starch.
This is a simple substitution of one known raw material for another in the method of Kawai and would predictably yield the same modified product. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use corn flour as the raw material in the process of Kawai.
Regarding claim 2, Kawai further teaches a moisture conditioning step of adjusting the moisture content of the mixture to 13.7% prior to the heating step, thus falling within the claimed range of 12-22% (Example 1 on page 6).
Regarding claim 3, Kawai further teaches that the modified powder of claim 1 can be used in a coating material for fried coated food (page 5 of English Translation).
Regarding claim 4, Kawai teaches a method for producing fried coated food comprising attaching a coating material containing the modified powder of claim 1 to a solid ingredients and then cooking the solid ingredient (page 5 of English Translation).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection have been fully considered but were not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kawai is silent with respect to using a cereal flour as a starting material in the method. Applicant states that Kawai teaches away from suing wheat flour, which is a cereal flour.
While the examiner agrees that Kawai is silent with respect to specifically using cereal flour as a starting material, this argument is not found persuasive as Kawai teaches that the raw material for the modified powder can be corn starch, which is a cereal starch (page 3 para 3, Examples 30-32). With respect to the corn starch being a cereal flour, e.g. corn flour, Kawai further teaches that the modified starch can be used as a flour (Examples 33-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use corn flour as the raw material as Kawai clearly teaches that corn starch can be used as the starting material and suggests the use of a flour.
Further, it would have been obvious to use corn flour depending on the desired nutrition and properties of the modified product as flour comprises fiber and protein along with the starch.
This is a simple substitution of one known raw material for another in the method of Kawai and would predictably yield the same modified product. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use corn flour as the raw material in the process of Kawai.
For the reasons stated above, a 103 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 STEPHANIE A KOHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1075. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571) 270-3435. 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.
/STEPHANIE A KOHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights