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 .
Response to Amendment
Those rejections not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11 are currently pending and rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite, “the first portion has a radial thickness that is greater than a radial thickness of the second portion.” In light of Applicant’s disclosure as a whole, this limitation lacks proper written description. Only the figure 5 representation of item 132 shows some variation in the thickness of layer 132. However, paragraph 55 of Applicant’s specification as filed refers to the adhesive layer 130 (which figure 5 can refer to both adhesive 131 and 132) can be an edible liquid having a viscosity, for example water, salty water, a sugar solution. It is not clear from the disclosure as to how adhesives such as water, salty water, a sugar solution, for example, would have allowed for a variation in thickness in the second adhesive as claimed. For example, the disclosure, while providing specificity with respect to the sequence of layers in cross-section, does not provide specificity with respect to the thickness of adhesive 132, as shown in figure 5. Therefore, the limitation is seen to lack proper written description.
Claims 2, 4-10 are rejected based on their dependence to a rejected claim.
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, 2, 4-11 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 and 11 recite, “such that an area of a specific length from the apex of the conical shape has a cross-sectional structure including only the outer shell, and wherein parts of the outer shell in said area are bonded to each other by said second adhesive layer.” This limitation is not clear as to how the cross-sectional structure can include only the outer shell, when the limitation also recites that there is an adhesive which would necessarily have been part of the cross-sectional structure.
Claims 2, 4-10 are rejected based on their dependence to a rejected claim.
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, 4, 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (US 20140170291 cited on IDS) in view of Kim (KR 20180001228) and in further view of Yoon (KR 2008016402), JP H04-103496 (JP’496) and “Frugal Nutrition” and in further view of Park (KR 2004-19585Y1 already of record from PTO892 filed April 15, 2025) and Yasouka (JP 2004-215502).
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 6, Chung teaches “an edible container” which can comprise an edible outer shell comprising laver (see figure 2, item 1 and paragraph 35, 36) and an edible inner shell, which can comprise rice, flour (see figure 2, item 3, and paragraph 32, 33, 35) and an edible first adhesive provided between the above two shells (see figure 2, item 2 and paragraphs 35-39) to bond the two shells together. Prior to heating, Chung’s edible container has been suggested to take any shape (see paragraph 44) and where the outer shell comprising laver and the inner shell comprising rice, flour, can be used as single sheets or as one or more sheets overlapped on one another (see paragraph 34) and the method for attaching the two sheets together is not limiting and can be performed by any known methods (see paragraph 36).
Claim 1 differs from Chung in specifically reciting that the edible container is a conical edible container and “wherein the outer shell and the inner shell are wound in a conical shape in a state in which the outer shell and the inner shell are bonded to each other to form a basic structure having the conical shape, wherein the outer shell forms an outermost side of the basic structure.”
However, Kim (KR 20180001228) teaches an edible container that has a conical shape (see figure 1, item 10) where the edible container can form a conical shell (see figure 5) which comprises an edible outer shell that can include seaweed (see the machine translation: at least, paragraph 17, “sliced or pulverized plants, seaweed…”; paragraph 25), which has been immersed in a liquid grain powder (see the machine translation: paragraph 18, 27; paragraph 36: immersing sliced seaweed in a liquid) thus comprising an edible inner shell. Further referring the conical shape, Kim teaches shaping the two layer composite into a cone using a mold and then baking (see the machine translation: paragraph 36; see machine translation paragraph 48 which discloses that after applying the adhesive mixture to the cone shaped frame, seaweed is attached to the cone shamed frame). Kim is also suggesting that the type of edible container can be referred to as bugak (see paragraph 18) and Chung also teaches that the edible container can be related to bugak (see paragraph 7 - Kimbugak). Chung also teaches that after shaping, that the composite edible material has been baked (paragraph 27 - roasting).
Since Chung teaches that the two layer structure can be in any shape (see paragraph 52-53) prior to roasting, to therefore modify Chung and to shape Chung’s composite edible structure into a cone so as to form a conical shape, as taught by Kim would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for providing a cone shaped edible container into which food can be filled, as suggested by Kim. Such a modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, based providing conventional food container shapes for similar types of food materials.
The claim differs from the above combination in specifically reciting that the inner and outer shell are wound in a conical state and that there is “a second adhesive layer provided between an inner part of the outer shell and an outer part of the outer shell”, and “wherein an area of the inner part of the outer shell which is uncovered by the inner shell contacts the second adhesive layer, wherein an area of the outer part of the outer shell which is superposed on the inner part of the outer shell contacts the second adhesive layer; and wherein the second adhesive layer includes a first portion that is provided between and contacted by only the inner part of the outer shell and the outer part of the outer shell, and wherein the second adhesive layer includes a second portion that is provided between and contacted only by the outer part of the outer shell and an inner part of the inner shell, and the first portion has a radial thickness that is greater than a radial thickness of the second portion.”
Yoon teaches an edible inner shell (figure 2, item R) that is superimposed on an edible outer shell (figure 2, item K). The seaweed layer (K) is clearly larger than the inner shell (R) so that the entire inner shell is superimposed on the outer shell. Yoon teaches that this allows for the layers to be rolled into a conical edible container (see figure 4b).
JP496 teaches, a conical edible container comprising seaweed (see figure 1A and the example on page 2 of the machine translation). JP496 further teaches the use of an edible paste adhesive for bonding the edible sheet into a conical shape (see paragraph 13 of the machine translation, “starch paste”). The conical edible container shape as taught by Kim and JP496 has been advantageous for being able to conveniently load food into the edible container for consumption (see Kim figure 5 and JP496, figure 1, item 2 - “food loading slot” see page 2 of the machine translation “Means for Solving the Problem”).
Chung already teaches that the cereal sheet and laver sheet may be used as single sheets or as one or more sheets overlapped on one another (see paragraph 34). By reciting that the sheets can “overlap” this is suggesting that the particular size of each sheet could vary. At paragraph 36 Chung is teaching that the cereal sheet can be attached to the laver sheet in any manner (see paragraph 36) and that the cereal sheet can take any shape (see paragraph 32). Chung is therefore not seen to be limiting as to how the inner shell and outer shell are arranged with respect to each other.
To therefore modify Chung such that the outer shell is larger than the inner shell and so that the outer and inner shell of Chung are wound into a conical shape as taught by Yoon and JP496, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, so as to use Chung’s composite sheet to form a desirable conical edible container into which food can be filled and because the art teaches that having the inner and outer shell wound in a conical shape and then bonded in position has been a conventional expedient for forming a conical container from a multilayered shell material.
In view of the above teachings, the prior art is suggesting the following cross-sectional structure to Chung’s conical edible container:
PNG
media_image1.png
145
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further regarding the second adhesive layer including a first portion that is provided between and contacted by only the inner part of the outer shell and the outer part of the outer shell and wherein the second adhesive layer includes a second portion that is provided between and contacted only by the outer part of the outer shell and an inner part of the inner shell” in view of Yoon, the prior art is teaching that the outer shell would extend past the inner shell. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that when forming Chung’s multilayer edible sheet into a conical shape, to have provided overhanging portions of the edible outer shell, as taught by Yoon. Additionally, Frugal Nutrition is teaching using water, for instance, to adhere an inner part of the outer shell to an outer part of the outer shell (see page 7, step 4). See the lower left figure on page 7 of Frugal Nutrition, annotated below:
PNG
media_image2.png
490
506
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Frugal Nutrition is also teaching an outer part of the outer shell adhered to an inner part of the inner shell because, as shown on page 7, there would also have been moisture, as a result of the rice for instance, between the inner part of the inner shell and the outer part of the outer shell, which can also provide adhesion.
PNG
media_image3.png
512
717
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In view of these teachings, modification of Chung in view of Kim, Yoon, JP496 and Frugal Nutrition would have suggested the following structure:
PNG
media_image4.png
171
636
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have sealed the freely hanging end of the outer shell of Chung as taught by Frugal Nutrition, such that the end of the seaweed is not freely hanging but rather remains in rolled in the conical shape.
Regarding the new limitation of, “wherein the inner shell is disposed at a location that spaced apart from the conical shape, such that an area of a specific length from the apex of the conical shape has a cross-section structure including only the outer shell, and wherein parts of the outer shell in said area are bonded to each other by said second adhesive layer,” in view of Yoon teaching winding of an outer and inner shell, as shown in figure 2, and since Chung already teaches overlapping the inner and outer shell in any manner and since Kim teaches that it has been desirable to shape a composite comprising seaweed and cereal into a conical edible container, the combination is suggesting that the inner shell is spaced from an apex of the conical shape such that an area of a specific length from the apex would have had a cross-sectional structure including only the outer shell. In view of JP496 and Yoon, the combination is suggesting that parts of the outer shell in said area of a specific length from the apex would have been bonded to each other by the second adhesive layer. That is, the particular length from the apex reads on any length.
Further regarding the above limitation, Yasuoka also evidences that it has been conventional to wind a seaweed sheet into a conical shape (see figure 4, item 1a and paragraph 6, “fresh roasted seaweed”) where a length from the apex there is only a cross-section that would have comprised seaweed, because as shown in figure 4, the filling material 3 is spaced from the apex of the edible sheet.
Regarding the new limitation of, “the first portion of the second adhesive layer has a radial thickness that is greater than a radial thickness of the second portion,” it is initially noted that since the prior art is using a starch paste, such as that taught by JP496, for the purpose of keeping the outer shell bonded together as well as to keep the inner part of the inner shell bonded to the outer part of the outer shell, that the particular proportions of how much of this adhesive where used for each bonding region would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for ensuring that the composite conical edible container remained secured in its wrapped configuration (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). Also, Applicant’s specification at paragraph 55 discloses that the edible liquid can be water or starch water, both of which the prior art is suggesting for adhering Chung’s composite structure into a cone shape. Further regarding the second adhesive layer, it is noted that while Frugal Nutrition teaches using water/moisture as the adhesive layer that can provide adhesion between the inner part of the inner shell (i.e. the rice layer) and the outer part of the outer of the outer shell as well as providing adhesion between the inner part of the outer shell and the outer part of the outer shell, Park (KR 200419585) teaches providing a seaweed outer shell that has an edible adhesive sprayed thereon (see figure 3, item 1; see page 3, lines 7-8 of the machine translation: “via an edible adhesive (2)”) and where an inner shell (see figure 3, item 4 and figure 4, item 3) is bonded to the outer shell using the above edible adhesive. Park teaches that this adhesive can be a starch paste (see page 3, line 10-12), which is similar to what JP496 teaches to bond the inner part of the outer shell to the outer part of the outer shell. Therefore, the art teaches the use of moisture or a starch paste for providing adhesion between the inner part of the outer shell and the outer part of the outer shell, as well as between an outer part of the outer shell and the inner part of the inner shell and to accordingly use other known adhesives such as a starch paste in varying thicknesses would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design.
Regarding claim 7, since the combination already teaches a conical edible container, the specific aspect ratio of the edible container would have been an obvious matter of engineering and/or design based on the desired proportions (i.e. length and diameter) of the cone. It is further noted however, that Kim suggests an aspect ratio of 8:12 (i.e. 1:1.5), which falls within the range of 1:1 to 1:10 (see paragraph 48).
Regarding claim 8, in view of JP’496 the combination teaches using a fan shape to the outer shell (see figure 1B). Chung also suggest a rectangular shape to the inner shell and outer shell. Nonetheless, in view of Yoon the combination teaches a fan shape to the inner and outer shell so as to be able to roll the shells into a conical edible container.
Regarding claim 10, it is noted that Chung teaches roasting the composite shell, which is thus seen to remove moisture after heating (see paragraph 31). It is also noted that Kim teaches roasting the conical edible sheet (paragraph 33) thus suggesting that moisture is removed from the inner and outer shell.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on Chung (US 20140170291) as the primary reference, and in further view of Sonobe (JP 2004-049216).
Regarding claim 2, in view of the combination as applied to claim 1 above, teaches the second adhesive layer provided to restrain the outer shell and the inner shell from being released from the conical shape.
Regarding the elasticity of the inner shell being stronger than that of the outer shell, it is noted that the combination teaches that the rice layer, Sonobe, for example, provides flexibility (i.e. elasticity) to bend without breaking (see paragraph 30 of the machine translation) by teaching an edible inner shell (figure 4, item 1; lines 251-285 of the machine translation) together with an edible outer shell of seaweed (see paragraph 30 of the machine translation, “it may be placed on a flexible sheet such as a synthetic resin film or an edible sheet such as seaweed. This makes it possible to reinforce the sheet-shaped cooked rice and it is easy to wrap or sandwich the ingredients with the sheet shaped cooked rice.” Therefore, Sonobe is suggesting that the inner layer having stronger elasticity than the outer seaweed layer. Chung also appears to suggests similar compositions for the inner shell that are similar to those disclosed by Applicant (see paragraph 33 of Chung and paragraph 52 of the instant specification, as filed). Therefore, to modify the specific structure of the inner shell such that it has an elasticity stronger than the outer shell, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of providing added strength to the edible conical container.
Regarding claim 11, the combination as applied to claims 1 and 2, teaches and suggests the claimed conical edible container had has been incorporated herein.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 4 above which relies on Chung as the primary reference, and in further view of Moon (KR89001820).
Regarding claim 5, in view of JP’496 the combination teaches using an edible adhesive to bond the outer shell together in a conical shape.
Claim 5 differs from the combination in specifically reciting that “the edible first adhesive layer” includes at least one of flour paste, rice paste and sticky rice paste.
It is noted however, that Moon evidences that rice paste can be advantageously used for bonding layers (2, 3) together (see page 2, lines 8-11 of the machine translation). Since the combination already teaches edible adhesives, to thus modify the combination and to use a rice paste or sticky rice paste, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of ensuring that the edible container was securely retained in its conical shape.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 8 above which relies on Chung as the primary reference, and in further view of Harada (US 20190110485) and YouTube.
Regarding claim 9, it is noted that the combination teaches that the outer and inner shell are bonded to each other to form the conical container.
The claim differs from the combination in specifically reciting, “a cutting line from one point of an edge of the outer shell to a central point is cut, and parts located on circumferentially opposite sides of a cutting line are superimposed on each other to be wound in a conical shape and are bonded to each other by the second adhesive layer to form the conical shape.”
However, it is initially noted since the claim is directed to the conical edible container and not the method of making the conical edible container, that the structure implied by the claim, that the opposing sides of the outer shell are superimposed on each other and bonded by the second adhesive, has been suggested by the prior art.
In any case, Harada teaches edible containers that are cones (see figure 6, item 20, for example) and where the edible container can be based on an unfolded sheet having a portion cut off (see figure 10B, item 2b and paragraph 72), where opposing sides of the cut line are superimposed on each other to form the conical shape (see paragraph 72). Additionally, YouTube evidences providing a cutting line (see page 1) and where opposing sides of a cutting line have been conventionally superimposed on each other (see page 2) to form a conical shape (see pages 3 and 4). JP’496 also teaches in figure 2D that there is a cutting line and where opposing circumferential sides of the cutting line can be superimposed on each other to form the conical shape (see figure 2D). To thus modify the combination and use another conventional shape by which a cone can be formed would have been an obvious smatter of engineering and/or design.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment to the claims, the obviousness-type double patenting rejections have been withdrawn.
On page 6 of the response, Applicant urges that the claimed conical shape with an area of a specific length from the apex including only the outer shell parts of the outer shell in said area are bonded to each other by said second adhesive layer, reduces the possibility of unnecessary thickness increase or poor adhesion at the apex which may occur of the inner shell extends to the apex, and allows for the basic conical shape to be more easily formed.
These arguments have been considered but are not seen to be sufficient to overcome the rejection because Yoon is already suggesting such a configuration as shown in figure 2, and because the claim recitation of “an area of a specific length from the apex” refers to any area of any length. Furthermore, the specification discloses when the inner shell is located at the apex, it may not make it easy to bond, but this is not seen to provide sufficient specificity because this would have been a function of factors such as the particular thickness of each layer and the degree of adhesion via the second adhesive.
On page 7 of the response, Applicant urges that the portion where the outer shell overlaps itself is a structural weak point where the unfolding stress that tends to open the container can be concentrated the most and this can be overcome by increasing the thickness at this portion.
These arguments are not seen to be sufficient in view of the rejection as presented in this Office Action. It is initially noted that, Applicant’s disclosure indicates that the second adhesive can be adhesives such as water, salty water, sugar solution and starch water, for example. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have sealed the overlapping portions of the outer shell, as suggested by JP496 and Frugal Nutrition, for the purpose of preventing unwinding of the shell. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have looked to using the requisite type and amount of adhesive for the purpose of preventing the outer shell from opening at this overlapped portion.
On page 8 of the response, Applicant urges that the prior art does not suggest an area of a specific length from the apex of a conical shape having a cross-sectional structure including only the outer shell and parts of the outer shell in said area are bonded to each other by said second adhesive.
This argument is not seen to be sufficient to overcome the rejection because it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that since Yoon teaches that the outer shell (K) is rolled into a cone, with the inner shell R spaced from the apex of the cone, there would have been some amount of area spaced from the apex that has a cross sectional structure including only the outer shell. Yoon’s layer K would have been analogous to Chung’s outer shell 1 and Yoon’s layer R would have been analogous to Chung’s inner shell 3. In view of these similarities and since Chung does not limit how the two layers can overlap each other, and since the prior art teaches a seaweed/cereal composite structure can be in a conical shape as taught by Kim, it would have been obvious to modify Chung and to provide a layered configuration as taught by Yoon based on known configurations for forming an edible conical container from a composite structure.
Further on page 8 of the response, Applicant urges that Frugal Nutrition does not disclose that the edible outer shell and the edible inner shell overlap and does not disclose a body sheet formed by bonding with the first adhesive layer in between and using the second adhesive layer disposed in the seam area where the ends of the sheet overlap when the body sheet is wound into a cone shape. Applicant further urges that the configuration including two distinct specific areas where the second adhesive layer contacts only between the inner part and the outer part of the outer shell and only between the outer part of the outer shell and the inner part of the inner shell is not disclosed in the reference.
This is not seen to be persuasive because Chung already teaches a body sheet formed by bonding with a first adhesive layer in between the edible inner and outer shells. Furthermore, Frugal Nutrition teaches using an edible second adhesive that specifically contacts both the inner and outer part of the outer shell for the purpose of sealing the seam (see page 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that this moisture would also have allowed for bonding between Frugal Nutrition’s outer part of the outer shell and an inner part of the inner shell (in this case, between an inner part of the rice layer and an outer part of the seaweed layer).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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