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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I (claims 1-4) with traverse in the reply filed on 8/8/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant argues that there is a “a technical relationship that involves the same special technical feature” with specifying what it is and without arguments directed at the showing in the restriction requirement that common technical feature was known in the art. As such, the argument is not persuasive. The restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 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
Regarding claim 1 D1 teaches a composition, which is for producing or improving a cooked-rice food product, and which contains the following component (A): (A) Bacillus licheniformis-derived a-amylase.as D1 teaches when a degraded starch product C obtained by treating a corn starch slurry with a-amylase (Termamyl 120L made by Novozymes A/S) was added to raw rice and the rice was cooked, workability such as pot release improved and ratings of grain feel, etc. after storing for 24 hours at 20 0 C were high, that is to say, the cooked rice food was improved and aging was inhibited (examples). The alpha amylase taught by D1, is (tradename Termamyl) as described in D1 is derived from Bacillus licheniformis. This evidence is provided by NPL D2 (see document 2, page 82; document 3, page 75). Therefore use of alpha amylase from the source as recited for the purpose of cooking rice was known and taught by D1
The recitation of “the improvement is suppressing scorching and/or aging of the cooked-rice food product” is only a statement of the inherent properties of the product. The enzyme recited in D1 is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Or where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01. Regarding the recitation of the specific type of improvement “the improvement is suppressing scorching and/or aging of the cooked-rice food product” (claim2), since D1 uses the same component for the same food product as instantly claimed, it follows that D1 meets the claimed limitation .
Regarding the enzyme mixture as recited in claims 3-4, D1 is silent regarding addition of (B) a glycosyltransferase, wherein the glycosyltransferase is maltotriosyl transferase, however, D 2 teaches a cooked rice quality preserver comprising a-glucosyl transferase and a-amylase, and indicates that when a formulation comprising a-glucosyl transferase (glycotransferase "Amano, " made by Amano Enzyme Inc.) and a-amylase ("Biozyme A, " made by Amano Enzyme Inc.) was added to raw rice and the rice was cooked, the hardness and grain feel after storage of the cooked rice obtained was improved compared to the control to which the formulation was not added. In test examples 5-1 to 5-4, 35-350 U of uamylase were added per 100 g of raw rice. In paragraph [0019], D2 indicates that the type of a-amylase to be used is not particularly limited, and a-amylase derived from Bacillus licheniformis, etc. can be utilized. The a-glucosyl transferase (tradename glycotransferase "Amano") described in document 4 is the same as that used in the examples of the present application, and is considered to be a maltotriosyl transferase (if necessary, see document 5, page 5, etc.). Thus inclusion of enzymes including licheniformis-derived a-amylase either alone or in combination with a glycotransferase, was known and the utility of adding enzymes for improving cooking rice was also known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include glycotransferase as taught by D2. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify D1 at least for the purpose of improving the hardness and grain feel after storage of the cooked rice as taught by D2.
Conclusion
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