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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 25, 2024 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Those rejections not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn. Claims 1-14 are currently pending. Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-7 are rejected.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on October 29, 2024 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on U.S. Application No. 17/294,100 and 17/294,258 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (US 20140170291) in view of Yunwoo (KR 20180001228), Young (KR 20170109937) and in further view of Gim (KR 20180007268) and Jun et al. (KR 20120021742) and in further view of Oh (KR 20140035178).
Regarding Yunwoo (KR 20180001228), Young (KR 20170109937), Gim (KR 20180007268) and Jun et al. (KR 20120021742) a machine translation has been relied on and is already of record. A machine translation has been relied on for Oh (KR 20140035178).
Regarding claim 1, Chung teaches providing a dried seaweed snack comprising a layer of dried seaweed (see figure 2; paragraph 35, “laver sheet 1”) and a layer of a grain sheet (see figure 2; paragraph 35, “cereal sheet 3”). The combination of the two layers are roasted together (see paragraph 54) and therefore produce a three dimensional shape. Chung thus teaches a dried seaweed snack comprising at least one layer of a joined body in which at least one layer of a dried seaweed sheet and at least one layer of a grain sheet are bonded together.
Regarding the limitation of, “wherein the at least one layer of a joined body is molded by means of a three-dimensional mold not preheated and the at least one layer of a joined body is roasted while being mounted in the mold; and wherein the at least one layer of a joined body roasted at a temperature of 175°C to 195°C for four to fifteen minutes while being mounted in the mold and wherein the at least one layer of a joined body is molded in a form in which one portion of the at least one layer of a joined body overlaps another part of the at least one layer of a joined body,” it is noted that this limitation is a product by process limitation, and product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113). In this regard, the structure implied by this limitation is that there is a dried seaweed snack and there is three-dimensional shape where at least one portion of the joined body overlaps with another portion of the joined body.
Chung teaches that the dried seaweed snack can be made to any size and shape before roasting to prepare a seaweed snack having a particular shape and size (see paragraph 44). At figure 1, Chung suggests that there can be a molding step after the cereal sheet and the laver sheet have been combined via a bonding solution.
Claim 1 differs from Chung in specifically reciting that the dried seaweed snack has at least one portion of the joined body that overlaps with another part of the at least one layer of a joined body.
Yunwoo teaches a seaweed snack that comprises at least one layer of a joined body in which at least one layer of a dried seaweed sheet and at least one layer of a grain sheet are bonded to each other (see paragraph 17 and 30 of the machine translation: That is, Yunwoo discloses that there is a layer of seaweed which is thus a sheet, and a layer of grain which is also a sheet. Since the two layers have been bonded to each other, Yunwoo discloses a sheet of dried seaweed snack). Yunwoo teaches that there are sheets of seaweed with the grain that overlap each other (see paragraph 48, lines 362-364), and because Yunwoo teaches a cone-shape to the dried seaweed snack (see paragraph 31), Yunwoo is seen to teach and suggest at least one portion of the joined body overlaps with another part of the at least one layer of a joined body.
Yunwoo is teaching a product that can be similar to bugak (see paragraph 57) that comprises both a layer of seaweed and a cereal layer sheet. Similarly, Chung teaches that the product can be an improvement to bugak (see paragraph 18 and 30) that also comprises a layer of seaweed and a cereal layer sheet. Like Chung, Yunwoo also teaches baking the composite snack for roasting the product (Yunwoo paragraph 48, lines 362-370). Yunwoo teaches a shape such as a cone shape so as to be able to also fill the snack with a filling (See figure 2, item 20).
To therefore modify Chung and to shape the composite snack into a cone shape prior to roasting would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of providing an alternative and known shape to a composite snack that can comprise a layer of seaweed and a layer of a grain sheet, for the purpose of being able to additionally provide a filling into a cone shaped snack.
Claim 1 differs from the above combination in specifically reciting that the joined body has a hardness of 2100g to 5500g and an average water content per 1 cm2 unit area of 1.15wt% to 2.0wt%.
However, Chung teaches that the composite snack heated at 150°C-380°C (Paragraph 54) for about 3 minutes, for example (see paragraph 55). Chung also recognizes that it has been desirable to ensure that the finished snack is not “too” hard and tough to chew to cause difficulties in eating (see paragraph 13) while still providing a crunchy texture (see paragraph 72). While Chung’s disclosure of “about 3 minutes” is not specifically 4-15 minutes as claimed, it is also noted that a prima facie case of obviousness can still exist where the claimed ranges do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05). In this instance, Chung teachings of 200-270°C or 150-380°C for about 3 minutes (see paragraph 55 of Chung), could be construed to overlap with 4 minutes. It is also noted that the cooking times and temperatures suggested Chung also overlap with the cooking times and temperatures disclosed at paragraph 21 and 33 of Applicant’s specification as filed. At paragraph 33, Applicant’s specification discloses an example which uses temperatures of 175-195°C for 3-15 minutes to prepare a joined body. At paragraph 56 and 65, Applicant’s specification discloses that the hardness is based on analyzing the paragraph 33 example. Because Chung teaches the desirability of providing crispness without being too hard, while also teaching a variety of temperatures and times for roasting the composite sheet, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have experimented with the temperatures and times for roasting Chung’s sheet, for the purpose of achieving the desired hardness/crunchiness without being hard and difficult to chew.
Regarding the limitation of the joined body having an average water content per 1 cm2 unit area of 1.15wt% to 2.0 wt%, the combination is not specific in this regard.
However, since Chung desires to have a crunchy texture to the seaweed snack, and also teaches roasting temperatures and times that overlap with those disclosed by Applicant, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided a moisture content of 1.15wt% to 2% for the purpose of achieving a desired crunch and hardness to the dried seaweed snack.
Additionally however, it is noted that Young teaches a cone shaped snack that comprises both laver and cereal grain (see paragraph 1) where the step of baking the composite snack at temperatures such as 100-200°C for achieving a moisture content of 1% for the purpose of providing a crunchy texture to the snack product (see paragraph 29). While this is not specific as to the range of 1.15wt% to 1.5wt%, it is noted that the purpose of the claimed water content is for providing the desired crispness and thus texture of the dried seaweed snack (see paragraph 25 of Applicant’s specification as filed). In this regard, it is noted that a suggested moisture content of 1wt% is seen to be close to the claimed range, such that a prima face case of obviousness would exist (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Even further however regarding the moisture content, Gim teaches seaweed snacks that can comprise a seaweed layer (5) and a grain layer (3) (see figure 2; paragraph 32-34 and 75) and where the moisture content of the snack can be less than 5wt% for providing the desired crispy texture (see paragraph 65), thus encompassing the claimed range of 1.15wt% to 2wt% and 1.15-1.5wt%. Jun teaches roasted seaweed snacks (see paragraph 32 and 33) and where a known moisture content for the snack can be within the range of 1.15wt% to 2wt% (see paragraph 64 and Table 3, example 2, which teaches a moisture content of 1.25, 1.33 and 1.38wt%; see the 2nd column from the left is directed to the moisture content).
Since Chung also desires a crunchy texture to the snack and since the combination also teaches baking at temperatures such as 150°C-380°C, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the Chung/Yunwoo combination and to provide an average water content such as 1wt% or 1.25wt%, 1.33wt% or 1.38wt%, for the purpose of achieving the desired crunchy texture to the dried seaweed snack.
Further regarding the claimed hardness of 2100-5500g and the product being roasted at a temperature of 175-195° for 4-15 minutes, it is initially noted that as discussed above, that since the claim is directed to the product, and not the method of making the product, this is a product by process limitation such that the claim is not limited to the manipulations of the recited step but only the structure implied by the steps, and in this regard, the combination is suggesting a dried seaweed snack comprising at least one layer of a joined body, comprising a layer of a dried seaweed sheet bonded to a layer of a grain sheet, and which joined body overlapping portions. It is further noted regarding the hardness, that Oh teaches that known hardness for snack foods that are desirably crisp (see page 15 of the machine translation, lines 4-5: “can have a crispier texture”), can be within the range of 2596-4267g (see paragraphs 83-84).
In view of the similarities between the claimed layers and that of Chung and since Chung already teaches a product that is to be desirably crunchy (see paragraph 13), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Chung and to provide a hardness of 2596-4267g, for example, for achieving the requisite degree of crunchiness / crispness and texture to Chung’s dried seaweed snack, as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design based on desired textural preferences for the snack.
Regarding claim 2, Chung teaches that the a least one layer of a dried seaweed sheet includes laver (see paragraph 35, “laver”).
Regarding claim 3, Chung teaches that the at least one layer of a grain sheet can include rice (see paragraph 33 where rice powder can be construed as a form of rice). It is noted that Yunwoo also teaches a grain sheet that can include grain powders, including wheat and rice (see paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 4, Chung teaches that the at least one layer of a joined body further comprises a layer of a bonding agent between the at least one layer of the dried seaweed sheet layer and the at least one layer of the grain sheet layer (see figure 2, item 2 and paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 5, the combination as applied to claim 1 suggests a water content of 1%. While this is not specific as to the range of 1.15wt% to 1.5wt%, it is noted that the purpose of the claimed water content is for providing the desired crispness and thus texture of the dried seaweed snack (see paragraph 25 of the specification as filed). In this regard, it is noted that a suggested moisture content of 1wt% is seen to be close to the claimed range, such that a prima face case of obviousness would exist (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Furthermore, in view of Gim and Jun, the combination further teaches a desirable moisture content within the range of 1.15wt% to 1.5wt%, as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the combination as applied to claim 1 teaches that there can be a seaweed layer to the snack.
Claims 6 and 7 differ from the combination as applied to claim 1 in specifically reciting, “wherein one side of the joined body has a chromaticity, of which L* is in a range of 15 to 30, a* is in a range of -15 to 5, and b* is in a range of -10 to 10 in the color coordinate” (claim 6) and “wherein one side of the joined body has a chromaticity, of which L* is in a range of 18 to 24, a* is in a range of -10 to 1, and b* is in a range of -4 to 6 in the color coordinate.”
Jun teaches desirable chromaticity of seaweed that has been prepared by roasting (see paragraph 31 and 33) can have a L* value that can be within the range of 18-24, an a* value within the range of -10 to 1 and a b* value within the range of -4 to 6 (see paragraph 60 and table 2). Jun teaches that such chromaticity shows a lack of quality deterioration (see paragraph 4 and 6).
To therefore modify the combination such that the L* is in a range of 18 to 24, a* is in a range of -10 to 1, and b* is in a range of -4 to 6 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of providing seaweed with a chromaticity that indicates that the seaweed quality has not deteriorated.
Response to Arguments
On pages 5-6 of the response, Applicant urges that Chung discloses roasting at 200-270°C or 150-380°C for 30 seconds to 3 minutes and therefore the roasting time of the claimed invention and Chung are within different ranges, and do not overlap with the claimed temperature of 175-195°C for 4-15 minutes.
These arguments have been considered but are not seen to be sufficient in view of the rejection as presented in this Office Action.
On page 6 of the response, Applicant urges that there is no plausible argument of obviousness nor an argument that the same result would be reached by each of the methods of Chung. Applicant also urges that it would not have been obvious to one having oirndary skill in the art to have experimented with the roasting temperature and time conditions of Chung to obtain the desired crunchiness without it being hard to chew because the times and temperatures of Chung are not similar to that of the claimed times and temperatures and the other references do not overcome these deficiencies of Chung because they disclose different conditions from the claimed roasting conditions.
These arguments have been considered but are not persuasive in view of the rejection as presented in this Office Action. Additionally, while Chung’s disclosure of 3 minute is not specifically 4-15 minutes as claimed, it is also noted that a prima facie case of obviousness can still exist where the claimed ranges do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05). In this instance, Chung teaches 200-270°C or 150-380°C for about 3 minutes (see paragraph 55 of Chung), such that about 3 minutes could be construed to overlap with 4 minutes. It is also noted that even if Chung’s particular heating conditions were not within the claimed range, since the claim is directed to a product and not the method of making the product, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use additional steps or modify the heating times for achieving the desired properties to the dried seaweed snack. In this regard, the prior art as presented in this Office Action further teaches that it has been known to provide a hardness within the claimed range for snack based foods and also teaches that it has been desirable to provide a moisture content within the claimed range, both for achieving a requisite texture and crispiness/crunchiness to Chung’s dried seaweed snack.
On page 6 of the response, Applicant reiterates the above remarks with respect to the remaining rejections.
These urgings are not seen to be sufficient for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO2019082899 discloses snack foods with a hardness of 1000-3000g (see paragraph 20 of the machine translation).
US 20180206537 discloses a dried snack which can have a breaking force of 31N (i.e. 3100g) (see table 7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIREN THAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-6694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:30-7:00pm.
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 on 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.
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792