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 without traverse of Group II (claims 5-10) in the reply filed on 4/17/2027 is acknowledged. Claims 1-2 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention.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.
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.
Claim 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IDS references to Jiang Feng et al (CN 111202211A) , hereinafter Jiang in view of Nakamura et al (US 20090285960A1), hereinafter Nakamura ‘960 and Nakamura et al (US 20100009054A1), hereinafter Nakamura ‘054.
Espacenet machine translations of both IDS references to Jiang has been provided along with this office action and the paragraph numbers cited in the office action refer to the paragraphs of machine translations of the above cited foreign reference.
Claims 5-10 are directed in general to a method of improving meat quality by the step of treating a meat with the meat quality improver, where the meat quality improver comprises wheat flour as an active ingredient, wherein the wheat flour contains or consists of wheat flour obtained by milling harvested wheat that does not lack GBSSI-A1 enzyme activity, lacks GBSSI-B1 and GBSSI-D1 enzyme activity, and lacks enzyme activity of any two of SSIla-A1, SSIIa-B1, and SSIIa-D1.
Jiang teaches method of producing chicken improvement method comprising the step of treating a meat with the meat quality improver comprising wheat flour and tumbling according to claims 5 and 6 having improved yield (Abstract and para 10 of translation). Jiang para 10 further teaches that the chicken is deep fried , i.e., heated, which meets the limitation of claim 8. Jiang also teaches claim 9 (which depends from claim 8) which adds the limitation of tumbling, which is the same as claim 6.
Regarding the limitation of claims 7 and 10 which recite “meat quality improver is 0.01 parts by mass or more per 100 parts by mass of the meat”, Jiang teaches that wheat flour which according to claim 5 comprises the meat quality improver, is added in 2-4 parts per 100 parts of diced chicken. Thus, the amount of wheat flour, which is the only ingredient of meat quality improver recited in the claims, falls in the claimed range of 0.01 parts by mass or more per 100 parts by mass of the meat.
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 Wetheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Thus the method steps recited in claims 5-10 are taught by Jiang.
Although Jiang teaches f wheat flour as part of the composition to improve meat, however, Jiang does not limit the wheat flour to be “obtained by milling harvested wheat that does not lack GBSSI-A1 enzyme activity, lacks GBSSI-B1 and GBSSI-D1 enzyme activity, and lacks enzyme activity of any two of SSIla-A1, SSIIa-B1, and SSIIa-D1”. however “wheat flour that does not lack GBSSI-A1 enzyme activity, lacks GBSSI-B1 and GBSSI-D1 enzyme activity, and lacks enzyme activity of any two of SSIla-A1, SSIIa-B1, and SSIIa-D1” is well known in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention as taught by Nakamura’ 960 (at least claim 25 where “A wheat comprising a genome which does not express one or more of the proteins selected from (a)-(c): (a) Wheat Starch Synthase II-A1 Protein encoded by Wheat Starch Synthase II-A1 gene of SEQ ID NO:1; (b) Wheat Starch Synthase II-B1 Protein encoded by Wheat Starch Synthase II-B1 gene of SEQ ID NO:3; and (c) Wheat Starch Synthase II-D1 Protein encoded by Wheat Starch Synthase II-D1 gene of SEQ ID NO:5; and which does not express one or more of the proteins selected from (d)-(f): (d) Granule Bound Starch Synthase A1 Protein encoded by Granule Bound Starch Synthase A1 gene of SEQ ID NO:7; (e) Granule Bound Starch Synthase B1 Protein encoded by Granule Bound Starch Synthase B1 gene of SEQ ID NO:9; and (f) Granule Bound Starch Synthase D1 Protein encoded by Granule Bound Starch Synthase D1 gene of SEQ ID NO:11; with the proviso that a wheat which only does not express the proteins (b), (d) and (e) is excepted” and para 91 where use of such wheat flour is taught in bakery foods, fried foods , grilled foods, as binder etc is taught). Further Nakamura ‘054 also teaches similarly produced wheat flours lacking in SS enzymes (Para 5, 16 -18)used for meat and fish products (Para 26, 51, 55 and 64) where such wheat flours impart a moist, chewy texture, and also a soft, melt-in-the-mouth sensation (Para 27 of Nakamura ‘054). Therefore, t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wheat or cereal flour does not lack GBSSI-A1 enzyme activity, lacks GBSSI-B1 and GBSSI-D1 enzyme activity, and lacks enzyme activity of any two of SSIla-A1, SSIIa-B1, and SSIIa-D1. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Jiang at least for the purpose of impart a moist, chewy texture, and also a soft, melt-in-the-mouth sensation (Para 27 of Nakamura ‘054).
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
Prosecution Insights