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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 1/30/2026 has been entered as compliant. Claim 1 has been amended and claims 17-20 are added to the current application. Elected claims 1-4 and 17-20 are pending and examined in the current application.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections
Rejection (office letter of 10/02/2025) of claims 1-4 made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-024368 A, hereinafter, D1, in view of JP 2020141606A), hereinafter D2, further evidenced by IDS cited NPL “Development and Application of an Enzyme” vol. 24, no. 12, 1989, 78-85, p. 82, (Food Processing and Ingredients December issue have been withdrawn based on applicant’s amendments to claims of 1/30/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kawarada et al., (JP 2020141606A Machine Translation), hereinafter Kawarada.
Note: Machine Translation obtained from Espacenet is relied upon for rejection of claims and the para # cited refer to the para #s of machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Kawarada teaches a composition, which is for producing or improving a cooked-rice food product (see para 10,section <1> which describes function as "quality preserving agent for cooked rice''),and
which contains the following component (A):
(A) Bacillus licheniformis-derived α-amylase (para 19 describes "α-amylase"
used is not particularly limited and may be derived from "Bacillus licheniformis''),
wherein said Bacillus licheniformis-derived α-amylase is in contact with raw rice
(see para 10, section <4> which describes "amount of α-amylase" in "uncooked rice'').
Regarding claim 2, Kawarada teaches the composition according to claim 1, wherein the improvement is suppressing scorching and/or aging of the cooked-rice food product (see para 5 that describes "suppresses aging" of "cooked rice"; also see para 8).
Regarding claims 3-4, Kawarada teaches the composition according to claim 1, which further contains the following component (B):
(B) a glycosyltransferase (see para 10, especially section <1> which describes "α- glycosyltransferase" as a component), wherein the glycosyltransferase is maltotriosyl transferase (see para 10, especially section <2> and <3>).
Regarding claim 17-18, Kawarada teaches the composition according to claim 1, wherein said component (A); i.e. the α-amylase, is present in an amount of 35 to 350 U per 100 g of raw rice (see para 10, especially section <4> ), which lies completely within the claimed range "from 0.001 to 10 U per 1 g of said raw rice" (i.e. 0.1 to 1000 U per 100 g) of claim 17 and also overlaps with the claimed range "from 0.002 to 1 U per 1 g of said raw rice" (i.e. 0.2 to 200 U per 100 g) of claim 18.
Regarding the overlapping of ranges between the invention and prior art composition it is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 19-20, Kawarada teaches the composition according to claim 3, wherein said component (B); i.e. glycosyltransferase, is present in an amount of 10 to 900 U of α glycosyltransferase per 100 g of raw rice (see para 10, especially section <2> ), which lies completely within the claimed range "from 0.005 to 500 U per 1 g of raw rice" (i.e., 0.5 to 50000 U per 100 g) of claim 19 and also lies completely within the claimed range "0.05 to 100 U per 1 g" (i.e. 5 to 10000 U per 100 g) of claim 20.
Regarding the overlapping of ranges between the invention and prior art composition it is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) rejected claims 1-4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on combination of references as applied in the prior rejection of record for the 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 JYOTI CHAWLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30- 5:30.
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.
/JYOTI CHAWLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights