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
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 1-7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IDs references to Kitano (20200178579), hereinafter Kitano, In view of IDS reference to JP 2016106630 A to Nabeshima et al , hereinafter Nabeshima (machine translation provided by the applicant).
Note paragraph #s of Nabeshima cited refer to the machine translation provided by the applicant.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Kitano (20200178579) teaches a method for manufacturing instant noodles to be reconstituted with water, comprising:
preparing raw noodle strings (see "Step 2" of para 64 i.e. "Raw Noodle Strings Production Step") each having a thickness of 0.93 mm or less (para 64 discloses “noodle belt having a predetermined thickness” and para 144 discloses example thickness as "noodle belt with a thickness of 0.9 mm ") from a raw material powder comprising wheat flour (para 63 describes “Step 1” uses “raw material powder” and para 38 and 84 discloses it may be “wheat flour” in combination with other materials) and one or more kinds of glutinous starch selected from the group consisting of glutinous potato starch and glutinous tapioca starch (para 38 and 84 additionally discloses “potato starch”).
Kitano does not specifically state that “a mass ratio of the wheat flour and the glutinous starch in the raw material powder is from 65:35 to 15:85”. However, Kitano teaches that raw material powder is a principal component of instant noodles and is preferably 50% or more by weight, otherwise properties are degraded (para 89), and that primary component of raw material is wheat flour (para 87, 1st sentence and raw material components in para 118) and also teaches that gluten in the range of 2-30% to create a balance between elasticity and extensibility of resultant noodles is good, and texture of the noodles is good (Para 90). Kitano examples includes higher proportion of wheat flour and lower proportion of modified starch by weight (Para 143).
Thus, Kitano strongly suggest compositions such as a mass ratio of the wheat flour, which is the main gluten providing source, and the glutinous starch in the raw material powder being 51:49, or 60:40, or 70:40, which overlap with the currently recited range. Further, the relative proportion of wheat flour and starch will vary based on the texture characteristics required (a results effective variable) for each type of hydrated dry noodles. For example, udon, soba, pasta, Chinese noodles (ramen), elementary noodles, cold wheat, vermicelli , Rice noodles (beef noodles, pho, etc.), katsuri, wonton, etc. have different shapes and thicknesses, and the required texture differs depending on the shape and thickness, and thus require varying ratio of flour to starch.
However, varying a mass ratio of the wheat flour and the glutinous starch in the raw material powder according to the results desired including the type of noodle product being made and reconstituting conditions desired was known in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention as taught by Nabeshima (para 15, 18, 32 and 35 where raw material including wheat flour and starches is taught).
Nabeshima teaches dry noodle that can be reconstituted at normal temperature ( from 10-40 ° C in for 45 minutes when the initial water temperature is 5-10 degree C and 30 minutes the initial water temperature is 20-40 °C (Para 43 and 44 of Nabeshima) when as is instantly recited in claim 3 which limits that “the instant noodles to be reconstituted with water are instant noodles to be reconstituted with water at a temperature of 30° C. or lower” (claim 3). In para 15-16 Nabeshima teaches water reconstituted dry noodle “reconstituted” and can be eaten with a good texture just by immersing it in normal temperature water, characterized in that the gelatinization degree of starch is in the range of 70% to 99% (Para 15 of Nabeshima) and that dried noodles with a starch gelatinization degree within the above range do not need to be boiled or poured with hot water like conventional dry noodles to increase the gelatinization degree, and can be eaten with a resilient texture (para 16, Nabeshima). Nabeshima in para 18 also teaches that gelatinization is performed by heating at the time of noodle making or before and after noodle making, and the range of gelatinization degree is adjusted by heating conditions. Therefore, it is not necessary to adjust the degree of gelatinization by boiling at the time of returning water or after returning. As a result, it is possible to eat with a good texture just by immersing the water-dried dry noodles in normal temperature water to absorb water.
Further, Nabeshima in para 32 clarifies that a more preferable range of the degree of gelatinization is also different from the relationship with the texture characteristics required for each type of hydrated dry noodles. For example, udon, soba, pasta, Chinese noodles (ramen), elementary noodles, cold wheat, vermicelli , Rice noodles (beef noodles, pho, etc.), katsuri, wonton, etc. have different shapes and thicknesses, and the required texture differs depending on the shape and thickness.
Thus, varying the relative mass ratio of the wheat flour and the glutinous starch in the raw material powder based on the type of noodle, the reconstituting conditions desired were known in the art.
As the mass ratio of wheat flour and starch has been established as a results effective variable (as explained above), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to modify Kitano so that a mass ratio of the wheat flour and the glutinous starch in the raw material powder is a specific value/range, such as the claimed ““from 65:35 to 15:85”; because it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kitano so that that “a mass ratio of the wheat flour and the glutinous starch in the raw material powder is from 65:35 to 15:85”. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kitano in view of Nabeshima at least for the purpose of keeping the gelatinization degree of starch is in the range of 70% to 99% in the dried noodle product (Para 15 of Nabeshima), so that the dry noodle that can be reconstituted at normal temperature, the normal temperature water here may be water at about 10-40 ° C, and such reconstitution can be achieved in for 45 minutes when the initial water temperature is 5-10 ° C and 30 minutes the initial water temperature is 20-40 ° C (Para 43 and 44 of Nabeshima).
Regarding the overlapping of ranges between the invention and prior art composition (as explained above(, 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 Wertheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 2, Kitano teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the glutinous starch comprises an esterified starch or an etherified starch (see of para 38 i.e. starch includes modified starch acetylated starch, etherified starch as raw material powder and Nabeshima para 35).
Regarding claim 3, Kitano in view of Nabeshima as applied above teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the instant noodles to be reconstituted with water are instant noodles to be reconstituted with water at a temperature of 30° C. or lower (see para 15 and 43 and 44 of Nabeshima).
Regarding claim 4, Kitano teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: pregelatinizing the raw noodle strings, and then frying or drying the raw noodle strings (Kitano para 65-66 where boiling to gelatinize starch is taught and para 71 where hot oil drying or frying is taught, similarly Nabeshima in para 28 teaches starch gelatinization at the time of making noodles.
Regarding claim 5, Kitano teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the instant noodles are fried instant noodles (para 71 where hot oil drying or frying is taught).
Regarding claim 6, Kitano teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the wheat flour comprises wheat flour derived from medium hard wheat as a main component (Para 41, where wheat flour weak flour, all-purpose flour, strong flour, durum wheat flour and the like in accordance with a protein content, and any of these can be suitably used).
Regarding claim 7, Kitano teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a total amount of the wheat flour and the glutinous starch in the raw material powder is 80 mass % or more ( Para 43 and 123), where raw material powder is a principal component of instant noodles, and preferably occupies 50% by weight or more in the whole raw materials used in the present invention, which overlaps the claimed range. Further, examples of Kitano teach 1000 + grams of raw material with flour and starch and seasonings and 345 parts water, which falls in the claimed range of about 80%. Further, the relative proportion of wheat dry ingredients vary based on the texture characteristics required for each type of dry noodles. For example, udon, soba, pasta, Chinese noodles (ramen), elementary noodles, cold wheat, vermicelli , Rice noodles (beef noodles, pho, etc.), katsuri, wonton, etc. have different shapes and thicknesses, and the required texture differs depending on the shape and thickness, and thus require varying ratio of flour and starch. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a desired amount of the wheat flour and the glutinous starch in the raw material powder . The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the amount of the wheat flour and the glutinous starch in the raw material powder in the range as claimed “80 mass % or more” at least for the purpose of making a dry noodle product with good texture and appearance and shelf stability.
Regarding claim 15, Kitano in view of Nabeshima teaches the method for manufacturing instant noodles, comprising: bringing the instant noodles manufactured by the method of claim 1 into contact with water at normal temperature or lower for 10 minutes or shorter to reconstitute the instant noodles to an edible state, the normal temperature water here may be water at about 10-40 ° C, and such reconstitution can be achieved in for 45 minutes when the initial water temperature is 5-10 ° C and 30 minutes the initial water temperature is 20-40 ° C (Para 43 and 44 of Nabeshima). Nabeshima in para 18 also teaches that gelatinization is performed by heating at the time of noodle making or before and after noodle making, and the range of gelatinization degree is adjusted by heating conditions. Therefore, it is not necessary to adjust the degree of gelatinization by boiling at the time of returning water or after returning. As a result, it is possible to eat with a good texture just by immersing the water-dried dry noodles in normal temperature water to absorb water.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include contact with water at normal temperature or lower for 10 minutes or shorter to reconstitute the instant noodles to an edible state. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kitano at least for the purpose of creating cook reconstituting noodles that can be prepared at normal temperature in a short time as claimed.
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 on 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