DETAILED ACTION
Amendments made December 11, 2025 have been entered.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are pending;
Claims 6-8 have been withdrawn.
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 .
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.
Specification
The objection to the disclosure has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments made December 11, 2025.
Claim Objections
The objections to claims 1-5 due to minor informalities has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments made December 11, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Notes:
“Noodles” is defined as a food which comprises a powdered raw material such as wheat flour and starch, as a main ingredient, which is processed into a linear shape, and which can be eaten when cooked by boiling, simmering, stir-frying, hot water immersion, or heating in a microwave oven with or without water emulsion. Instant specification paragraph 19.
“Instant fried noodles” means noodles that have been dried by deep-frying and drying until the moisture content in the noodles is about 1-10%, and which are cooked by boiling in water, adding boiling water thereto at the time of consumption, or adding water and heating in a microwave. Instant specification paragraph 20.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakao et al (JP 2000245377 machine translation) in view of Seto et al (US 2010/0323070).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Nakao et al (Nakao) teaches a method of making instant fried noodles comprising:
kneading noodle raw material containing a main raw material, such as flour, calcined calcium, and water to obtain a dough;
cutting the dough into raw noodle strands, i.e. a linear shape;
attaching water to the raw noodle strands before frying and drying; and
deep frying the raw noodle strands without streaming (abstract, paragraphs 9, 11, 15-18, 25, 58-59, and 65).
Regarding drying of the raw noodle strands as recited in claim 1, as discussed above Nakao teaches of instant noodles formed by frying. Nakao exemplifies the frying at 145C for 2 minutes (paragraphs 59 and 65). Nakao is not specific to the step of deep frying with drying as recited in claim 1, or to the moisture content of the noodles as about 1-10% which is required by the definition of instant fried noodles (instant specification paragraph 20). Seto et al (Seto) teaches manufacturing instant fried noodles which are dried by frying in oil at a temperature of 130-160C for about 2-4 minutes to achieve a moisture content 5% or less, preferably 3% or less (abstract and paragraph 13). It would have been obvious for the frying of Nakao to dry the instant fried noodles to a moisture content of 3% or less as it was a preferred moisture content for instant fried noodles as taught by Seto. Additionally, it would have been obvious for the frying as taught by Nakao to achieve the known results of drying to a moisture content of less than 5% for forming instant fried noodles as taught by Seto.
Regarding the method as free of steaming as recited in claim 1, as Nakao teaches that the method may include steaming, boiling, or the like, (paragraph 25), the method taught by Nakao does not require steaming. In other words, the alternative step of boiling taught by Nakao may be performed instead of steaming.
Regarding the calcium-containing material as from 0.05-0.5 parts by weight of 100 parts of the main raw material as recited in claim 1, Nakao teaches that the calcined calcium is preferably included at 2g per 800 grams flour material (paragraph 65), and thus the teachings of Nakao encompass 0.25g calcined calcium per 100 grams of raw material.
Regarding deep-frying and drying as preformed at 140C or higher as recited in claim 3, as discussed above, the prior art encompasses or makes obvious frying and drying. Additionally, Nakao teaches of frying at 145C (paragraphs 59 and 65). Thus, the teachings of the prior art encompass the limitations as claimed.
Regarding deep-frying and drying as performed below 140C for 10 seconds or less as recited in claim 4, as Nakao does not teach of deep frying below 140C (Example 12), the teachings of Nakao encompass the claimed limitation. It is noted that 10 seconds or less encompasses 0 seconds.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamura et al (JP 2020-202771 machine translation) in view of Nakao et al (JP 2000245377 machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Yamamura et al (Yamamura) teaches a method of making an instant fried noodle comprising:
kneading noodle raw material comprising a main raw material including flour, auxiliary materials including salts, and water to obtain a dough;
cutting the dough into raw noodle strands, i.e. a linear shape;
attaching water to the raw noodle strands before frying and drying; and
deep frying and drying the raw noodle strands until a moisture content of less than 10%, and wherein the method is without streaming (abstract/overview, paragraphs 2-5, 12, 14, 17-20, 22, 30 and claims 1 and 5)
Yamamura is silent to the noodle raw material as including at least one of calcined calcium and calcium hydroxide, wherein the calcium material is added from 0.05-0.5 parts per 100 parts of the main raw material as recited in claim 1.
Nakao et al (Nakao) teaches a method of making instant fried noodles comprising: kneading noodle raw material containing a main raw material, such as flour, calcined calcium, and water to obtain a dough; cutting the dough into raw noodle strands; attaching water to the raw noodle strands before frying and drying; and deep frying the raw noodle strands without streaming (abstract, paragraphs 9, 11, 15-18, 25, 58-59, 65) .Nakao teaches that the noodles have an improved quality, a firm and uniform palate feeling which is enhanced by rolling with an alkaline agent including calcined calcium, where the calcined calcium is exemplified as preferably included at 2g per 800 grams flour material (0.25g/100g) (abstract paragraphs 9-11, 16-18, and 65).
Regarding the noodle raw material as including at least one of calcined calcium and calcium hydroxide, wherein the calcium material is added from 0.05-0.5 parts per 100 parts of the main raw material as recited in claim 1, it would have been obvious for the instant fried noodle of Yamamura to include about 0.25g/100g calcined calcium in order to enhanced the improved quality of the noodle product as taught by Nakao.
Regarding deep-frying and drying as preformed at 140C or higher as recited in claim 3, Yamamura teaches that the frying and drying are performed at 110-160C until a moisture content of 10% or less is achieved (paragraph 23), and thus encompasses the claimed range.
Regarding deep-frying and drying as performed below 140C for 10 seconds or less as recited in claim 4, Yamamura teaches that the frying and drying are performed at 110-160C (paragraph 23), and thus encompasses frying above 140C and does not require frying below 140C. It is noted that 10 seconds or less encompasses 0 seconds. Thus, the teachings of the prior art encompass the limitations as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 11, 2025 regarding the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Seto does not cure the deficiencies of Nakao and that as Nakao specifically teaches gelatinizing by steaming, boiling or the like, and every example of Nakao includes steaming or gelatinization, that the teaches of Nakao do not specifically exclude steaming as claimed. This argument is not convincing. As Nakao teaches gelatinization performed by steaming, boiling or the like, the process of Nakao does encompass gelatinization through means such as boiling, wherein steaming is not taught or required. The claims do not exclude gelatinization or boiling which are in the alternative method encompassed by the teachings of Nakao.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Yamamura with Nakao and there is no reasonable expectation of success in doing so because to combine the references would destroy the teachings of Yamamura as it would require the gelatinization or steaming of Nakao. This argument is not convincing as the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Nakao teaches that the noodles have an improved quality, a firm and uniform palate feeling which is enhanced by rolling with an alkaline agent including calcined calcium, where the calcined calcium is exemplified as preferably included at 2g per 800 grams flour material (0.25g/100g) (abstract paragraphs 9-11, 16-18, and 65). It would have been obvious for the instant fried noodle of Yamamura to include about 0.25g/100g calcined calcium in order to enhanced the improved quality of the noodle product as taught by Nakao.
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention has unexpected results as seen in paragraphs 24 and 35. This argument is not convincing as there is no cited evidence to support it, let alone evidence which is commensurate in scope with the claims, and compares the closest prior art of record. Furthermore, it is noted that Nakao teaches the use of calcium provides for benefits. Nakao teaches that the noodles have an improved quality, a firm and uniform palate feeling which is enhanced by rolling with an alkaline agent including calcined calcium, where the calcined calcium is exemplified as preferably included at 2g per 800 grams flour material (0.25g/100g) (abstract paragraphs 9-11, 16-18, and 65).
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 KELLY BEKKER whose telephone number is (571)272-2739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-3:30pm.
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.
KELLY BEKKER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1792
/KELLY J BEKKER/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792