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 .
This office action is in response to the application filed on March 14, 2024.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) with filing dates of September 15, 2021 and November 4, 2021. The certified copies of IN 202111041602 and EP 21206346 have been filed in the present application, both received on March 14, 2024.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The present application is a 371 National Stage Application of PCT/EP2022/075314 which has a filing date of September 12, 2022.
Status of Application
Claims 1-13 are pending. Claims 14 and 15 are canceled. Claims 1-13 are presented for examination.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains the implied phrase “the invention relates to” multiple times and it ends with a comma instead of a period. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-6, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The first word of each step in claim 1 is capitalized; each word should be in lowercase because the claim is one sentence.
Claim 1 in step b) recites “an uniform dough,” should be “a uniform dough.”
The cutting and folding step in claim 1 was amended to be step e), yet the end of the step recites “the noodle strands from steps d) or e),” thus the step refers to itself.
Claim 1 recites “Kansui salts” twice, while claims 4, 5, and 6 recite “kansui salts.” The word “kansui” should either all be capitalized or all lowercase so that the claim language aligns with each other.
Claim 12 recites “the drying in step g),” yet the drying step in claim 1 is step f).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites an air flow rate with units of “L/h/g.” While the “L/h” is understood to be liters per hour, the “g” in the unit is unclear as to what it is supposed to represent. Neither the claims nor the specification offer any meaning to this unit. An attempt at searching what this air flow rate represents also proved fruitless. Thus, the lack of clarity as to this flow rate renders the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the air flow rate will be considered to be in the unit of L/h.
Claims 3, 5, and 11 recite a weight of flour, kansui salts and lipid, respectively, based on the weight of the “total composition.” It is not clear if this “total composition” is referring to the dough made in step b) of claim 1 or to the final composition of the noodle strands after all the claimed steps (a-g) have been completed. Neither the claims nor the specification offer any guidance as to what the “total composition” is referring to, thus the claim is rendered indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted such that the “total composition” is the uniform dough produced in step b) of claim 1.
Claim 13 recites a range of “within 0.5 to 15 min” which renders the claim indefinite as it’s unclear if 0.5 mins and 15 mins are included in the claimed range. In other words, would a time period of 0.5 mins (or 15 mins) meet the claimed range, or would a time period have to be at least, say, 0.51 mins in order to meet the claim? Neither the claims nor the specification offer any guidance as to clearing up this lack of clarity. Thus, the word “within” in relation to the claimed range is unclear and thereby renders the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the claimed range of “within 0.5 to 15 min” will be considered to include both 0.5 min and 15 min as time periods that meet the claim.
Claims 2, 4, 6-10, and 12 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 1-6 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toh (WO 2006/066609) in view of Kato et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0359644) and Teh et al. (US Patent 6,482,461), herein after referred to as Toh, Kato, and Teh, respectively.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Toh discloses a process for the production of an instant non-fried noodle comprising flour, kansui salts, and oil, the process comprising the steps of:
a) preparing a mixture of oil and other ingredients,
b) reacting said mixture above atmospheric pressure (i.e., activating the lipid),
c) preparing a dough mixture comprising wheat flour, water, kansui solution, and a part of the preceding reaction mixture (i.e., mixing the activated lipid from the earlier steps with the flour and other dry ingredients with the kansui salts to form a uniform dough),
d) processing said dough by kneading, rolling into sheets, cutting into strips, and steaming (i.e., sheeting, cutting, and steaming noodle strands), and
e) drying the dough mixture with air (p. 1 lines 23-36).
Toh also teaches that additional oil and dry ingredients (such as starch and gums) can be added to the dough mixture (p. 3 lines 5-9).
Toh also teaches that the pre-reaction step of the composition comprising oil takes place at a pressure above atmospheric pressure and at a temperature higher than 100°C but preferably between 125 and 140°C (p. 2 lines 14-23). Thus, this pre-reaction step taught by Toh is considered to activate the lipid and is activated by heating the lipid to a temperature between 125-140°C, which lies within the claimed range; thereby reading on the claimed limitation.
Toh is silent as to that activating the lipid also comprises applying an aeration into the lipid having an air flow rate between 0.5 to 8 L/h (as best understood with regard to the 112(b) rejection above) for 2 to 10 hours.
Kato, in the same field of invention, teaches a palm oil-derived composition for incorporation into food products that heats the lipid product to 105°C and applies aeration into the lipid product having an air flow rate of 11.4 ml/min (equivalent to 0.684 L/h) for 2 hours [0094]. Kato offers the motivation that heating and aerating the lipid product allows the composition to not have off or unnatural flavors or unnatural oily and greasy feeling [0042].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the pre-reaction step of Toh by incorporating the aeration of Kato, thereby arriving at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of the lipid to not provide unnatural flavors or unnatural greasy feeling to the composition.
The steps of sheeting, cutting, and steaming taught by Toh differ from the claimed invention in that steaming occurs after cutting in Toh, while steaming occurs prior to cutting in the instant claim. However, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930). See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C).
Toh and Kato are silent as to slitting the dough after sheeting to obtain noodle strands, folding the noodle strands after cutting, and cooling after drying.
Teh, in the same field of invention, teaches a method of producing air-dried noodles comprising mixing a dough, then the dough is sheeted, slitted, cut, steamed, folded, dried, then cooled (Example 1; col. 3 lines 8-10, 38-48, and 57-65).
Therefore, as it was known in the art to produce non-fried noodles using a series of steps, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have produced non-fried noodles with the steps as claimed, by modifying the method steps of sheeting, steaming, cutting, and drying of Toh with the slitting, folding, and cooling steps of Teh, as Teh teaches that non-fried noodles are known to be produced using all of the claimed steps.
The order of steps differ slightly than the order of steps of the instant claim, however, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930). See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C).
Regarding claim 3, Toh is silent as to explicitly teaching the weight of the flour in the total composition. However, Toh does teach the weights of all the other components in the total composition: 0.5-5 wt.% of reacted concentrate, 10-15 wt.% of kansui salts (p. 2 lines 25-36), 0-5 wt.% oil, and 0-20 wt.% starches (p. 3 lines 11-14). Thus, the composition comprises 10.5-55 wt.% of all ingredients excluding flour and therefore, the amount of flour in the total composition is 44-89.5 wt.%. This range encompasses the claimed range of 47-80 wt.%, and where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Toh teaches that the kansui salts comprises a mixture of sodium chloride, sodium carbonate, potassium carbonate, and sodium polyphosphate (a specific type of sodium phosphate) (p. 2 lines 32-34).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Toh teaches that the kansui salts are added as an aqueous solution, and the weight of the kansui solution is in the range of 10-25 wt.% of the total composition. The solution comprises 1 wt.% of the salts (and thus 99 wt.% water) (p. 2 lines 32-36). Thus, the amount of kansui salts in the total composition is 0.1-0.25 wt.%, which overlaps with the claimed range of claim 5 of 0.2-3.5 wt.%. Where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 11, Toh teaches that the amount of the oil (i.e., lipid) is 0-5 wt.% of the total composition (p. 3 lines 11-12), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1-10 wt.%. Where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 12, Toh teaches that the drying is done via impingement drying at a temperature of 150°C and a drying time of 5 minutes (300 seconds) (Example 1). Both the temperature and the drying time lay within the claimed ranges of 70-180°C and 60 to 600 seconds respectively.
Regarding claim 13, modified Toh teaches that the dough, through the steaming step, is processed through normal noodle processing (Toh: Example 1).
Modified Toh also teaches that the steaming is done by using saturated steam for 120 seconds (2 minutes) (Teh: Example 1), the time of which lies within the claimed range of 0.5-15 minutes.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toh (WO 2006/066609) in view of Kato et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0359644) and Teh et al. (US Patent 6,482,461), as applied to claim 1 above, and as evidenced by Basuny et al. (“Relationship between Viscosity and Some Chemical Characteristics of Frying Oils,” Nutrition and Food Toxicology; vol. 1, issue 2, pp. 44-53; 2017), herein after referred to as Basuny.
Modified Toh teaches the process for the production of an instant non-fried noodle as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Modified Toh teaches that the lipid solution (specifically comprising palm oil) is heated to temperatures higher than 100°C (p. 2 lines 20-21).
Modified Toh is silent as to that the activated lipid comprises a total polar matter between 6.5 to 20% based on the total lipid. However, as evidenced by Basuny, the amount of polar content in palm oil after being heated to 180°C is ~10%. Thus, the activated lipid of modified Toh must comprise a total polar matter of 10% based on the total lipid.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toh (WO 2006/066609) in view of Kato et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0359644) and Teh et al. (US Patent 6,482,461) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oh et al. (“Rheological, microstructural, and tomographical studies on the rehydration improvement of hot air-dried noodles with oleogel,” Journal of Food Engineering, volume 268; March 2020), herein after referred to as Oh.
Modified Toh teaches the process for the production of an instant non-fried noodle as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Modified Toh is silent as to that the lipid is an oleogel comprising a wax and an oil.
Oh, in the same field of invention, teaches air-dried noodles comprising an oleogel comprising soybean oil and candelilla wax. Oh offers the motivation that air-dried noodles with an oleogel have higher thermal conductivity and softer texture (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the composition of modified Toh by substituting the lipid of modified Toh with the oleogel of Oh, thereby arriving at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of producing air-dried noodles with high thermal conductivity and a soft texture.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toh (WO 2006/066609) in view of Kato et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0359644) and Teh et al. (US Patent 6,482,461) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Oh et al. (“Rheological, microstructural, and tomographical studies on the rehydration improvement of hot air-dried noodles with oleogel,” Journal of Food Engineering, volume 268; March 2020) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Demirkesen et al. (“Recent developments of oleogel utilizations in bakery products,” Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition; vol. 60, no. 14, 2460-2479; 2020), herein after referred to as Demirkesen.
Modified Toh teaches the process for the production of an instant non-fried noodle as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
As set forth above with regard to claims 7 and 8, modified Toh in view of Oh teaches that the lipid is an oleogel comprising a wax and soybean oil.
Modified Toh in view of Oh is silent as to that the oil is sunflower oil.
Demirkesen, in the same field of invention, teaches that oleogels for inclusion in food products have been made with various types of oils, including both soybean oil and sunflower oil. Demirkesen offers the motivation that different types of oils result in different qualities of the final composition (p. 2466, right column, first full paragraph). Therefore, where both soybean oil and sunflower oil are known to be used to make oleogels for food products, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the soybean oil of Oh with the sunflower oil of Demirkesen, thereby arriving at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of producing a product with a desired and expected end quality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Gao et al., CN 101194704, teaches a lipid that undergoes enzyme hydrolysis, heating, and aeration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURA E SWEENEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0244. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00 EST.
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.
/M.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791