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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2022/0151268 (Dobrich).
Dobrich does not expressly state “shumai” but does disclose that “dumpling” refers to the steamed dumpling variety having a tender skin texture. The instant specification states that shumai is a Chinese steamed dumpling [0002]. Thus, it is understood that the teaching of Dobrich encompasses shumai as a Chinese steamed dumpling. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to make a shumai dumpling since Dobrich teaches that the term dumpling encompasses steamed dumpling variety and shumai is known as a steamed Chinese dumpling.
Dobrich teaches a microwavable frozen dumpling comprising a dough for the dumpling that is made of rice flour, oil a modified cellulose polymer and water. Dobrich discloses that it is believed that the modified cellulose polymer binds and retains water/moisture at a higher-than-normal rate without imparting any unnatural chewy or gummy texture to the dough [0088, 0095, 0102]. Dobrich teaches microwaving a frozen dumpling at a power of at least 700 W for at least 30 seconds until reaching a temperature of at least 50C [0123]. Dobrich teaches that the methods do not require the addition of water to the microwave heating process [0124, 0129].
Dobrich does not expressly address the water content of a part of the dumpling dough that is not in contact with the filling. However, Dobrich does teach that the dough has a moisture content of at least 52wt% and that the addition of the modified cellulose polymer binds and retains the water at a higher-than-normal weight, and further states that the dumpling can be heated from a frozen state in a microwave without hardening, cracking, bubbling or drying out [0088]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the amount of water retained by the dough of the dumpling, whether in contact with the filling or at the periphery, to be such that the dough does not harden, crack or dry out. Such a retention of water is reasonably expected to fall within the broad range of 39wt% up to 55 wt%. An example of water (moisture) content is as high as 59.10 wt% (Table 6) which is significantly higher than 39wt% and based upon the teachings of water retention and microwaving without drying out or hardening, a water content of at least 39wt% is considered to be reasonably expected. Moreover, based upon the teaching that the cooked dumplings can be prepared with a moist and tender skin texture akin to traditional steamed dumplings [0078], one would reasonably expect the ratio of the moisture content before heating to the content after heating to draw near to 100% (i.e., no moisture loss).
Additionally, Dobrich in Table 5, subscript “b” states that the moisture content of frozen dumplings of Example 16 in full scale production had an average dough moisture content of 53.3wt%. Dobrich expressly teaches that “The modified cellulose polymer may enhance the water retention properties of the dough upon microwave heating. Specifically, doughs formulated with a modified cellulose polymer have a sufficiently high moisture content, and retain moisture well even after being subjected to microwave heating followed by periods of cooling. As a result of these moisture retention capabilities, cooked dumplings can be prepared with a moist and tender skin texture akin to traditional steamed dumplings [0078]. Taking the teaching that the dough has a moisture content above 52wt%, with the example where the dough has 53.3wt% moisture content for a full-scale production of dumplings, and with the teaching that the materials of the dough are selected to retain moisture well even after being subjected to microwave heating, one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect the dough material of Dobrich to have a moisture content within the range of 39-55wt% after microwaving.
Alternatively, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to provide a near 100% retention of the “at least 52wt%” moisture of the dough after microwave heating as it is clearly suggested that increased retention of the moisture content is desirable to provide a tender skin texture [0077].
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2018/0325125 (Ohama).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5 and 6, Ohama teaches Chinese dumplings (shumai) of which a peripheral portion (ear portions) is not likely to become hard after cooking with a microwave oven. The dough sheet (noodle wrapping) contains grain flour, acetylated phosphate-crosslinked starch and hydroxy-propylated starch [0020-0022]. The moisture content of the dough is 20-45 wt% [0052] and before the dumplings are frozen, water is sprayed on the dumplings during a heating step to provide the peripheral portion of the dough sheet a moisture content of 30-40wt% [0065, 0072]. The peripheral portion refers to the portion of the dough sheet not in contact with the filling and in the case of shao-mai (shumai) the dough sheet is pleated without contacting the filling [0073]. The peripheral portion is also called the adhering portion [0073]. The frozen Chinese dumplings were microwaved for 1 minute 30 seconds at 500 W resulting in a temperature of the product of 85C [0080]. Table 2 shows results of different test materials for the dough and the combination of acetylated phosphate-crosslinked starch and hydroxy-propylated starch was a 10 for both the softness of the adhering portion and mouthfeel of wrapping sheet. This indicates a retention of moisture but no moisture swelling [0092]. In other words, the moisture content is expected to be consistent with the content prior to reheating after being frozen. Based upon the lack of swelling of water and the retention of elasticity, texture and chewiness of the dumplings after freezing and re-heating, the moisture content after microwaving is expected to be consistent with the moisture content prior to microwaving (i.e. nearly 100% retention). This expected moisture content of 30-40wt% of the peripheral region of the wrapper taught by Ohama overlaps with the range of 39-55wt% after microwaving of claim 1. Moreover, the disclosed water content of 30-40 wt% of the peripheral part of the wrapper prior to microwaving also overlaps with the water content of 39-57wt% before microwaving of claim 2. Maintaining a consistent amount of water in the peripheral region of the wrapper would result in a ratio of approximately 100%, thus meeting the ratio of claims 2 and 6.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 7 and 8, Ohana teaches the addition of water to the dumpling during the heating stage that is performed before freezing. There is no disclosure of spraying water on the frozen shumai or covering the frozen shumai with a food wrap film.
Response to Arguments
Amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejection of claims 5-8.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Dobrich, applicant argues that even if the water content of the dough after heating in a microwave oven could be predicted to be similar to that of the present invention in view of the water retention ingredient contained in the dough, the importance of the water content of the dough after heating in a microwave oven, in improving the texture after heating in a microwave is not suggested from the data in Table 6 of Dobrich. However, Table 6, is a comparison of changes made to inventive example 16 and examples 18-23 are all comparative examples where materials of the inventive example were substituted or the method of the inventive example were altered. For instance, sweet rice flour was removed in Example 18, and was replaced with normal rice flour in Example 19. The carboxymethycellulose was replaced with xantham gum in Example 20 or removed in Example 21 [0163-0166]. In Example 22, soybean oil was removed and in Example 23, steam was used rather than hot water blanching. The comparisons with inventive Example 16 are not demonstrative that Dobrich does not teach the water content of the dough (WB) as well as reasonably establish the expectation that the water content (WA) after heating would be in the range claimed.
Regarding Ohama, applicant argues that the water content in a peripheral portion is preferably 35-38wt% and that Example 7 of Ohama shows that when the water content is 35.5wt%, the wrapping sheet had an appropriate breaking strength. Applicant argues that when the water content was 41.6wt% (Example 6) the breaking strength was not appropriate, thus the claimed WA of 39-55wt% could not have been suggested by Ohama.
This argument is not persuasive, since Ohama refers to the narrower range as their preferred range and is not seen to preclude the broader teaching that the moisture content is 30-40wt%.
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 JENNIFER C MCNEIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
JENNIFER C. MCNEIL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1793
/Jennifer McNeil/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights