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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida JP 2019013156A (Espacenet Translation) in view of Jun JP 2018161070 (Espacenet Translation) in view of Matsunaga JP 2002360199 (Espacenet Translation) in view of Chung-Ung KR 940002525B1 (PE2E Search Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida discloses a method for manufacturing frozen noodles comprising subjecting raw noodles manufactured by an ordinary method to boiling treatment to produce boiled noodles; applying water to surfaces of the boiled noodles by sprinkling (Espacenet Translation [0024]). Yoshida teaches filling a freezing container with the boiled noodles having water applied to the surfaces and subjecting the boiled noodles to a freezing treatment, wherein the freezing treatment is started within 120 seconds from an end of the boiling treatment (Espacenet Translation, Abstract, [0017]-[0026], Claims 1-3).
Yoshida discloses that an amount of water sprinkled in the sprinkling can be 50 mL with respect to 100g of the boiled noodles (Espacenet Translation, [0078]). Yoshida teaches utilizing this amount in a comparative example, Yoshida does disclose that the samples showed good loosening during cooking, but that the flavor and texture were inferior. While the flavor and texture were inferior, it is noted that MPEP 2123.II recites that “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use."
Claim 1 differs from Yoshida in the recitation that the noodles produced after boiling specifically have a moisture less than moisture of the noodles after cooking.
Jun discloses a method for manufacturing frozen noodles comprising a step of subjecting raw noodles manufactured by an ordinary method to boiling treatment to produce boiled noodles, the boiled noodles containing moisture less than moisture of the noodles after cooking. Jun discloses that by reducing the moisture content of the noodle strings below normal, there is room for the noodle strings to absorb moisture (Espacenet Translation [0018], [0033]). Thus, Jun teaches a known technique in the art includes boiling noodles to be frozen and subsequently cooked in the microwave to a moisture content less than the noodles after the final cooking step. It is noted that Yoshida already discloses that the boiling treatment can be varied to obtain desired texture (‘156, Espacenet Translation [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yoshida such that the noodles produced after boiling specifically have a moisture less than moisture of the noodles after cooking as taught by Jun in order to provide the noodles with a desired texture, it has been held that “Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness. (MPEP 2143.I.D)
Claim 1 differs from Modified Yoshida in the recitation that the method comprises filling the freezing container with an ice lump containing frozen water.
However, it is noted that Yoshida discloses that the frozen noodles can be packaged with separate soup or ingredients (‘156, Espacenet Translation [0027]).
Matsunaga discloses packaging a frozen noodle that was previously boiled and an ice lump containing frozen water (block of soup 3, stock, ice 5) (Fig 4) in order to provide a packed frozen cold noodle capable of being eaten with a taste close to the noodle freshly boiled, easily eaten without requiring discarding hot water and eaten as a low temperature cold noodle (abstract, [0004], [0006], [0011]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yoshida such that the method comprises filling the freezing container with an ice lump containing frozen water as taught by Matsunaga in order to allow the noodles of Yoshida to be eaten as a low temperature cold noodle. It has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.A).
Claim 1 differs from Modified Yoshida in the recitation that the boiled noodles and ice lump containing frozen water are filled in the container together prior to the freezing treatment.
Chung-Ung discloses a method of manufacturing frozen noodles comprising filling boiled noodles and ice lump containing frozen water (frozen block sauce includes water) in container together prior to the freezing treatment of the boiled noodles (Translation Pg. 3 Step 1-Step 5). Chung-Ung discloses that since the ice lump containing frozen water is frozen in advance and frozen together with the noodles it can prevent the noodles from absorbing moisture from the ice lump (frozen ice block sauce) (Translation Pg. 5, Example 8). Thus, Chung-Ung recognizes it was a known technique in the art that the boiled noodles and ice lump containing frozen water are filled in the container together prior to the freezing treatment of the boiled noodles which can prevent the noodles from absorbing moisture from the ice lump. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Modified Yoshida such that the boiled noodles and ice lump containing frozen water are filled in the container together prior to the freezing treatment in order to prevent the noodles from absorbing moisture from the ice lump. It has been held that “Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.D), and that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.A).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Yoshida discloses that the temperature of the boiled noodles before freezing is at least 45 °C or higher (‘156, Espacenet Translation [0026]), since the noodles are filled into the freezing container with 120 seconds from the end of the boiling treatment (‘156, Abstract), the noodles obviously have a temperature of at least 45 °C or higher on filling the freezing container.
Regarding claims 3 and 7, claims 3 and 7 differs from Modified Yoshida in the recitation that a weight of the ice lump is 10 to 50% by weight of the total weight of the frozen noodles. However, Matsunaga discloses that the size of the ice lump can be varied based on the type of cold noodles and desired coldness, since Matsunaga discloses that the size of the frozen soup blocks or blocks of ice can be increased depending on the type of cold noodles and if you prefer them cold (‘199, Espacenet Translation [0006], [0011], [0012]). Absent compelling evidence of criticality it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely adjust the weight of the ice lump based on the type of cold noodles and desired coldness (MPEP 2144.05.II).
Regarding claims 4 and 8, claims 4 and 8 differs from Modified Yoshida in the recitation that an amount of ice water contained in the ice lump is 5 to 40% by weight of a weight of noodles after cooking of the frozen noodles. However, Matsunaga discloses that the size of the ice lump can be varied based on the type of cold noodles and desired coldness, since Matsunaga discloses that the size of the frozen soup blocks or blocks of ice can be increased depending on the type of cold noodles and if you prefer them cold (‘199, Espacenet Translation [0006], [0011], [0012]). Absent compelling evidence of criticality it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely adjust the amount of water contained in the ice lump based on the type of cold noodles and desired coldness (MPEP 2144.05.II).
Regarding claims 5 and 9, Modified Yoshida discloses that the frozen noodles are Chinese noodles (‘156, Espacenet Translation [0028])
Regarding claims 6 and 10, Modified Yoshida discloses that the frozen noodles are for microwave oven cooking (‘156, Espacenet Translation [0064]).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Yoshida alternatively discloses the ice lump consists of water (ice lump can be considered ice 5) (‘199, Espacenet Translation [0005], [0006]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida JP 2019013156A (Espacenet Translation) in view of Jun JP 2018161070 (Espacenet Translation) in view of Matsunaga JP 2002360199 (Espacenet Translation) in view of Chung-Ung KR 940002525B1 (PE2E Search Translation) in view of Nakamura JP 2002119243A (Espacenet Translation).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Yoshida discloses that the ice lump is a frozen mixture of toppings and water (block of soup 3, dashi stock 4, ice 5) (Fig 4) (‘199, Espacenet Translation [0011]). It is noted that “toppings” is broad and dashi stock 4 can be considered a topping.
Additionally, Nakamura discloses providing an ice lump that is a mixture of toppings and water (Fig. 4) with frozen noodles (Espacenet Translation [0007], [0019]-[0022]). Therefore, in light of the teachings of Nakamura it would have been obvious to provide an ice lump that is a frozen mixture of toppings and water with the frozen noodles. It has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Yoshida does not teach sprinkling an amount of water to the surface of the boiled noodles that is 50-300 mL with respect to 100g of the boiled noodles recited by claim 1.
Yoshida discloses that an amount of water sprinkled in the sprinkling can be 50 mL with respect to 100g of the boiled noodles (Espacenet Translation, [0078]). Yoshida teaches utilizing this amount in a comparative example, Yoshida does disclose that the samples showed good loosening during cooking, but that the flavor and texture were inferior. While the flavor and texture were inferior, it is noted that MPEP 2123.II recites that “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use."
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 ASHLEY AXTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0316. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00- 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, ERIK KASHNIKOW can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/A.A/
Ashley AxtellExaminer, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights