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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “after the noodles are boiled, and a seasoning is added” in Lines 3-4, and should properly read “after the noodles are boiled, a seasoning is added”. 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 1-4 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.
Claims 1 recites a composition wherein “a seasoning is added to make the broth”. It is unclear when the seasoning is added to the “boiling hot water for broth”, e.g. before or after the noodles are boiled, or before or after the claimed oil, emulsifier, and thickening polysaccharide are added. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the addition of seasoning at any point.
Claim 1 additionally recites a composition which contains “oil, emulsifier, and the polysaccharide thickener in amounts derived from the composition for preparing the boiling hot water for broth”. It is unclear what is intended by this limitation. For the purposes of examination, a broth containing oil, emulsifier, and boiling hot water is interpreted to meet the limitation of the claim.
Claim 1 additionally recites 0.390-5.000 w/w% of oil, 0.001-0.400 w/w% of and emulsifier, and 0.001-0.800 w/w% of a thickening polysaccharide. It is unclear whether the claimed weight percentages are relative to, e.g., boiling hot water prior to the boiling of noodles, or at some other step in the process. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as weight percentage of a broth at any step in the preparation of the broth.
Claims 2 depends from independent Claim 1 and is therefore also rejected.
Claims 3 incorporates independent Claim 1 and is therefore also rejected.
Claim 2 additionally recites an amount of emulsifier, wherein the emulsifier “corresponding to 0.05-10 w/w% of the oil is blended”. It is unclear whether the emulsifier is required to be pre-blended with the oil prior to combination with the “boiling hot water for broth”. It is additionally unclear whether the term “corresponding” is intended to mean a relative weight of emulsifier to oil, or some other meaning. For the purpose of examination, an amount of emulsifier 0.01-10 w/w%, relative to the amount of oil, that has undergone blending is interpreted to meet the limitations of the claim.
Claim 4 recites a method comprising (1) adding a composition for “preparing boiling hot water for broth” to water or hot water, and (2) “putting noodles into the boiling hot water for broth and boiling the noodles in a state accompanied by boiling”, and (3) “adding a seasoning agent…to the boiling hot water for broth”. However, it is unclear whether the “boiling hot water for broth” of parts (2) and (3) comprises the composition of part (1). It is additionally unclear whether the noodles of part (2) are required to be boiled in the “boiling hot water for broth”, or whether they are only required to have undergone a step of “boiling…in a state accompanied by boiling”. For the purpose of examination, a composition comprising the composition, noodles that have been boiled, and a seasoning agent is interpreted to meet the limitation of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuramoto (US 2011/0183060).
Regarding Claim 1, note that the limitation of “for preparing boiling hot water for broth, wherein the boiling hot water for broth is the boiling hot water used to boil the noodles, and after the noodles are boiled, and a seasoning is added to make…instant broth noodles with a simmered bone taste” is directed towards intended use and does not further limit the Claim. Regardless, Kuramoto teaches a composition used to prepare soup for an instant noodle [0065]. The soup is flavored with a heated aqueous extract of meat bones [0015], which would be expected to provide a “simmered bone taste” as claimed.
Kuramoto teaches that the 5 grams of the dried composition is added to 100 grams of 95 °C water [0059], which is 4.7% of the overall composition. Note that the hot water of Kuramoto is interpreted to meet the limitation of “boiling hot water”. Kuramoto additionally teaches that the dried composition is 64.6% fat/oil, 0.7% emulsifier, and 14.8% dextrin (which is a thickening polysaccharide, [0035]) (Page 4, Table 2). Kuramoto therefore teaches that the final composition comprises 3.0% fat/oil, 0.70% dextrin, and 0.03% emulsifier, which lies within the claimed ranges.
Regarding Claim 2, Kuramoto teaches the use of 64.6% fat/oil and 0.7% emulsifier (Page 4, Table 2). The weight of emulsifier is 1.1% of the weight of the oil, which lies within the claimed range. The emulsifier is blended [0056] with ingredients for a broth, which meets the limitation of “The composition…wherein the emulsifier…is blended”.
Regarding Claim 3, Kuramoto teaches a composition used to prepare soup for an instant noodle [0065] comprising the composition as discussed above in regards to Claim 1, and additionally comprising seasonings such as salt and sugar [0065].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuramoto (US 2011/0183060) in view of Tostzilla (https://tokyoexcess.blogspot.com/2019/05/maruchan-tonkotsu-soy-sauce-instant.html), taken with evidentiary reference of Yamachan Ramen (https://www.yamachanramen.com/ramen-blog/tonkotsu-ramen).
Regarding Claim 4, Kuramoto teaches the composition for broth, as discussed above in regard to Claim 1. Note that Kuramoto teaches the addition of both the broth composition according to the claim and additional seasoning ingredients [0065], including a meat extract derived from bones [0015] extracted with hot water. Kuramoto teaches that the noodles, seasoning, and broth composition are added to hot water, but does not specifically teach adding the composition to boiling hot water, placement of boiled noodles, and addition of a separate seasoning agent with a “simmered bone taste”.
Tostzilla teaches the addition of multiple soup packets, boiled water, and boiled noodles to an instant noodle dish comprising broth (Page 2, bottom image). Note that absent evidence to the contrary, the boiled water of Tostzilla is interpreted to meet the interpretation of “boiling hot water”.
Note that tonkotsu is known in the art as a flavor derived from simmering bones (see evidentiary reference of Yamachan Ramen, Paragraph 1). The soup base of Tostzilla is therefore interpreted to have a “simmered bone taste” as claimed.
Tostzilla teaches that the preparation method produces a savoury, flavourful instant ramen product (Page 1, Paragraph 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the method of Tostzilla to prepare the instant noodles of Kuramoto. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Tostzilla teaches that such a preparation method results in a product with a good taste.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBORAH LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5685. The examiner can normally be reached 12-8 Eastern Time.
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.
/D.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights