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 § 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.
Claim 3 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a tip portion of the blade portion” in line 2. It is unclear if this refers to “a tip portion of the first outer peripheral portion” recited in Claim 1, lines 14-15, “a tip portion of the second outer peripheral portion” recited in Claim 1, line 16, or to an entirely different tip portion of the blade portion.
Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kimura et al. US 2012/0135123 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed July 15, 2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Kimura et al. discloses a grooved noodle (grooved noodle 10) which is provided with four grooves (grooves 12) extending along a noodle string direction (direction L) at regular intervals and whose cross section perpendicular to the noodle string direction (direction L) has a substantially circular main outline (substantial circle C) (‘123, FIGS. 1 and 5) (‘123, Paragraphs [0020]-[0021]). The cross section of a noodle string includes a core region (core 14) of substantially circular shape situated in a central part of the cross section and has a diameter that is 26% to 41% of a diameter of the noodle string (‘123, Paragraphs [0009], [0027], and [0051]), which overlaps the claimed range of 20% to 40% of a diameter of the noodle string. Kimura et al. also discloses four hook shaped portions (four hook shaped portions 46) formed on a periphery of the core region (core 44) due to the four grooves (four grooves 42) extending in a spiral manner in a same rotational direction while increasing in width from the core region (core 44) to a surface of the noodle string (‘123, FIG. 5) (‘123, Paragraphs [0046] and [0051]). Each of the four hook shaped portions (four hook shaped portions 46) includes a leg portion extending from the core region (core 44) in a substantially radial direction of the noodle string and a blade portion connected to the leg portion and extending in a substantially circumferential direction of the noodle string (‘123, Paragraph [0051]). The leg portion has a width of 18% to 30% of the diameter of the noodle string (‘123, Paragraphs [0027] and [0051]), which overlaps the claimed leg portion width of 14% to 28% of the diameter of the noodle string. The blade portion has a first outer peripheral portion extending from the leg portion in the substantially radial direction, a second outer peripheral portion connected to a tip portion of the first outer peripheral portion and extending in the substantially circumferential direction, and a third outer peripheral portion extending from a tip portion of the second outer peripheral portion to the leg portion wherein the second outer peripheral portion is configured such that a part thereof on a first outer peripheral portion side is closer to a center of the noodle string than another part thereof on a third outer peripheral portion side is (‘123, FIG. 5). An angular portion (base 24) is formed at a joint portion between the first outer peripheral portion and the second outer peripheral portion (‘123, Paragraph [0025]). A joint portion (tip 26) between the second outer peripheral portion and the third outer peripheral portion is provided with an arc shaped portion having a radius of curvature (‘123, FIG. 5) (‘123, Paragraph [0026]). The radius of curvature is in a range of 0.07 mm to 0.14 mm (‘123, Paragraph [0042]), which falls within the claimed radius of curvature of 0.050 to 0.160 mm.
PNG
media_image1.png
934
1010
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kimura et al. discloses overlapping ranges of a ratio of a diameter of the core region relative to a diameter of the noodle string and a ratio of the width of the leg portion relative to the diameter of the noodle string and the radius of curvature above. When the prior art discloses ranges which touches or overlaps the claimed ranges but no specific examples falling within the claimed range are disclosed a case by case determination must be made as to anticipation. In order to anticipate the claims, the claimed subject matter must be disclosed in the reference with sufficient specificity to constitute an anticipation under the statute (MPEP § 2131.03.II.). In the present instance, all three claimed ranges are mainly encompassed by the corresponding ranges of the prior art of Kimura et al.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. US 2012/0135123 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed July 15, 2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Kimura et al. anticipates the limitations of Claim 1 as enumerated in the anticipation rejections under 35 USC 102 above. However, in the event that it can be argued that Kimura et al. does not teach any of the claimed ranges with sufficient specificity,
Kimura et al. discloses overlapping ranges of a ratio of a diameter of the core region relative to a diameter of the noodle string and a ratio of the width of the leg portion relative to the diameter of the noodle string and the radius of curvature above. Where the claimed diameter of the core region relative to a diameter of the noodle string, leg portion width relative to noodle string diameter, and radius of curvature overlaps diameter of the core region relative to a diameter of the noodle string, leg portion width relative to noodle string diameter, and radius of curvature ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.).
Further regarding Claim 1, Kimura et al. discloses the size of the noodle is not limited and both the diameter and length of the noodle can vary (‘123, Paragraph [0028]). It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the core region diameter relative to the diameter of the noodle string, the leg portion width relative to the diameter of the noodle string, and radius of curvature of the grooved noodle of Kimura et al. and adjust said core region diameter relative to the diameter of the noodle string, leg portion width relative to the diameter of the noodle string, and radius of curvature since differences in the core region diameter relative to the diameter of the noodle string, leg portion width relative to the diameter of the noodle string, and radius of curvature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such core region diameter relative to the diameter of the noodle string, leg portion width relative to the diameter of the noodle string, and radius of curvature is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the core region diameter relative to the diameter of the noodle string, leg portion width relative to the diameter of the noodle string, and radius of curvature based upon the desired shape of the grooved noodle, which is influenced by the diameter of the overall noodle.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. US 2012/0135123 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed July 15, 2024) in view of Kimura et al. US 2020/0260764 (herein referred to as “Kimura et al. ‘764”).
Regarding Claims 2-4, Kimura et al. is silent regarding the angular portion having an angle of 90 to 110 degrees, a ratio of the radius of curvature of a tip portion of the blade portion to a radius of a circle circumscribing the cross section to be 5% to 16%, and a ratio of an area of the cross section to an area of a circle circumscribing the cross section to be 60% to 70%.
Kimura et al. ‘764 discloses a grooved noodle having a shape that is not particularly limited as long as the grooved noodle has a groove or a plurality of grooves formed along the longitudinal direction of the noodle string and a substantially circular configuration in cross section of the noodle string (‘764, Paragraph [0061]) wherein the number of grooves is 2 to 8 (‘764, Paragraph [0061]), which encompasses the claimed four grooves.
Both Kimura et al. and Kimura et al. ‘764 are directed towards the same field of endeavor of grooved noodles. Both grooved noodles of Kimura et al. and Kimura et al. ‘764 have four grooves. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the grooved noodle of Kimura et al. and adjust the shape such that the angular portion having an angle of 90 to 110 degrees, a ratio of the radius of curvature of a tip portion of the blade portion to a radius of a circle circumscribing the cross section to be 5% to 16%, and a ratio of an area of the cross section to an area of a circle circumscribing the cross section to be 60% to 70% since Kimura et al. ‘764 teaches that the grooved noodle shape is not limited as long as the grooved noodle has a groove or a plurality of grooves formed along the longitudinal direction of the noodle string and a substantially circular configuration in cross section of the noodle string (‘764, Paragraph [0061]). The configuration of the grooved noodle is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the grooved noodle was significant in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.). Furthermore, differences in the angle of the angular portion, the ratio of the radius of curvature of a tip portion of the blade portion to a radius of a circle circumscribing the cross section, and a ratio of the cross section to an area of a circle circumscribing the cross section will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such angle of the angular portion, the ratio of the radius of curvature of a tip portion of the blade portion to a radius of a circle circumscribing the cross section, and a ratio of the cross section to an area of a circle circumscribing the cross section is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 5102252 discloses a grooved noodle provided with four grooves extending along a noodle string direction at regular intervals and whose cross section perpendicular to the noodle string direction has a substantially circular main outline wherein the cross section of a noodle string includes a core region of substantially circular shape situated in a central part of the cross section and four hook shaped portions formed on a periphery of the core region due to the four grooves extending in a spiral manner in a same rotational direction (‘252, FIG. 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
496
701
media_image2.png
Greyscale
EP 0450428 discloses a grooved noodle provided with grooves extending along a noodle string direction at regular intervals and whose cross section perpendicular to the noodle string direction has a substantially circular main outline wherein the cross section of a noodle string includes a core region of substantially circular shape situated in a central part of the cross section and hook shaped portions formed on a periphery of the core region due to the four grooves extending in a spiral manner in a same rotational direction (‘428, FIG. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
922
985
media_image3.png
Greyscale
JP 2001/17104 discloses a grooved noodle provided with four grooves extending along a noodle string direction at regular intervals and whose cross section perpendicular to the noodle string direction has a substantially circular main outline wherein the cross section of a noodle string includes a core region of substantially circular shape situated in a central part of the cross section and four hook shaped portions formed on a periphery of the core region due to the four grooves extending in a spiral manner in a same rotational direction (‘104, FIG. 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
760
1119
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kimura et al. US 2018/0249741 discloses a grooved noodle having a U-shaped groove or V-shaped groove that linearly extends from the vicinity of the core toward the surface of the noodle and the groove is disposed along the radial direction of the substantially circular configuration of the noodle (‘741, FIG. 5) (‘741, Paragraph [0047]).
Fujita et al. US 2010/0080882 discloses a grooved noodle.
Moriyama et al. US 4,752,205 discloses an extruder for forming elongate pasta strands having various shapes such as a circular, a rectangular, or an elliptical shape which shapes are not limited wherein the pasta strand has at least a groove extending longitudinally in the pasta strand wherein the cross section of the groove has any of V, U, and polygonal shapes wherein the number of grooves is one to four wherein the position of the grooves is not particularly limited wherein the total area of the cross section of the grooves is 2 to 25% with respect to the area of the cross section of the pasta strand.
Kimura et al. US 2015/0272175 discloses a macaroni having a hollow portion formed along a pasta body direction comprising circumferential wall portions forming a substantially circular cross sectional shape of a pasta body and hollow wall portions located inside the circumferential wall portions and forming a substantially circular shape wherein a plurality of grooves are formed along the pasta body direction (‘175, FIG. 7-8) (‘175, Paragraph [0013]) made by extruding dough through a die shaped to have various types of grooves (‘175, Paragraph [0096]) wherein the plurality of grooves extend in the cross section of the pasta body at an angle of 95 to 175° with respect to openings of the grooves (‘175, Paragraph [0019]).
Kimura et al. US 2018/0249742 discloses grooved noodles comprising a center region and grooves in the center region wherein a degree of water and heat penetration into the noodle upon entrance of hot water into the grooves varies depending on the shape of the noodles (‘742, FIG. 4) (‘742, Paragraph [0030]).
Tanaka et al. US 2013/0302498 discloses an extruded noodle comprising grooves having a curved surface having a radius of curvature of 0.01 mm to 0.1 mm (‘498, Paragraph [0077]).
Yao et al. US 2022/0338526 discloses a grooved pasta having a bending angle that increases as the groove width decreases (‘526, Paragraph [0070]).
Lechthaler et al. US 5,840,359 discloses noodles cut to the desired length.
Belliveau et al. US 2016/0037785 discloses a dough processed by cutting into various pasta shapes and sizes (‘785, Paragraph [0058]).
Murray-Laursen US 2015/0230504 discloses a pasta product of any suitable size (‘504, Paragraph [0029]).
Sheets et al. US 2013/0115337 discloses an extruder for pasta cutting a piece of substrate of the desired shape and size including length (‘337, Paragraph [0034]).
Borders et al. US 2007/0077345 discloses an extruder for making pasta wherein the shape and size of the final product is varied using different die configurations (‘345, Paragraph [0035]).
Succar et al. US 2006/0246188 discloses a pasta item made of various shapes and sizes (‘188, Paragraph [0046]).
Cross US 6,045,851 discloses a method of making pasta comprising the step of using any conventional pasta die depending upon the desired product shape and size.
Fiorentino US 2020/0077683 discloses noodles of any length, diameter, or thickness in dried format having varied shapes, diameters, and lengths (‘683, Paragraph [0009]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICSON M LACHICA whose telephone number is (571)270-0278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5pm, 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, 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.
/ERICSON M LACHICA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights