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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 on11-19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/19/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-16, and 18-21 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (US 20140170291 A1) in view of Schultz (US 20190364937 A1), Inoue (WO 2015170631 A1), Tutuncu (US 20030118628 A1), Vander (WO 2010103483 A2), Miyake (JP H02100645 A), Karwowski (US 20060246195 A1), Horie (JP S62134070 A), and Choi (KR 20180010518 A).
Regarding claim 1, Chung teaches (Paragraph 0003, 0021-0025) novel laver (seaweed) snacks produced by using cereal sheets, wherein a bonding solution is applied to a cereal sheet (grain sheet), a laver (seaweed) sheet is applied to the cereal sheet with the bonding solution, the cereal sheet and the laver sheet are pressed together to prepare a double-layer sheet, and oil (moisture barrier layer comprising a moisture barrier material) is applied on the double-layer sheet (where the oil applied to the double-layer sheet must necessarily be applied on at least one side of the bonded sheet). Chung further teaches (Paragraph 0041) the oil (moisture barrier layer) may be any oil permitted for food preparation (edible oil).
Chung is silent on the edible oil and fat comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of hydrogenated palm kernel oil, and palm olein oil. Chung is further silent on the edible sheet having a moisture content of 0.5 wt% or higher and less than 3.0 wt% per 1 g of the edible sheet 60 days immediately after freezing.
Inoue teaches (Page 1, 7) an oil and fat composition for coating seaweed, wherein the type of fat or oil that may be used for coating the laver includes palm kernel oil, and the processed oils and fats may be hydrogenated.
Schultz teaches (Paragraph 0012, 0032, 0049, 0051) coating a cereal piece in a composition comprising an acid component and an oil component, wherein the oil component comprises one or more edible oils/fats including hydrogenated palm kernel oil, and wherein the cereal piece comprises a grain-based core that may be rice in some embodiments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Chung to use or include hydrogenated palm kernel oil in the edible oil and fat in view of Schultz and Inoue, since each of Chung, Schultz, and Inoue is directed to a seaweed and or grain product treated with oil and fat, since Chung teaches (Paragraph 0041) the oil (moisture barrier layer) may be any oil permitted for food preparation (edible oil), since coating seaweed with hydrogenated palm kernel oil is known in the art from Inoue, since coating grains including rice with hydrogenated palm kernel oil is known in the art from Schultz, since an oil and fat composition that may be hydrogenated palm kernel oil can improve the flavor of the laver, even after storage, enhance saltiness while using less salt and raw materials, improve the umami, and enhance spiciness (Inoue, Page 8), since hydrogenated palm kernel oil is known as a particularly preferred food ingredient for oral comfort, e.g., lubricate, coat and/or moisten, the oral cavity (Tutuncu, Paragraph 0033, 0034), and since hydrogenated palm kernel oil is a preferred coating for a food product since such fats function as a moisture barrier, which minimizes the risk for intrusion of moisture into the food product, but fully melts in the mouth (Vander, Page 13, lines 22-30).
Furthermore, providing hydrogenated palm kernel oil as a moisture barrier for a bonded sheet would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (See MPEP 2144.07), and hydrogenated palm kernel oil is a known coating material for seaweed and grain food products as demonstrated above by Schultz and Inoue.
Miyake teaches (Page 1, lines 13-15; Page 2, lines 90-82; Page 3, lines 107-109) a frozen mochi processed product, wherein mochi made from 100% glutinous rice (grain) may be used, and, in certain embodiments, the mochi may be wrapped in seaweed and quickly frozen and stored in a frozen state.
Karwowski teaches (Paragraph 0035, 0099) a whole grain, shredded chip-like snack having a substantially uniform shredded net-like appearance and a crisp, shredded texture obtained by substantially compressing a laminate of net-like sheets of the shredded whole grain pellets, wherein products of the present invention may have a moisture content of less than about 5% by weight, preferably about 0.5 to about 3 weight percent.
Horie teaches (Page 2, lines 65-66, 75-77) a laver (seaweed) made by applying oil uniformly and heating with a moisture content of about 2%.
Choi teaches (Paragraph 0001, 0023) a method for producing kelp powder tea by mixing red yeast germinated brown rice powder and kelp powder, wherein fermented germinated brown rice is subjected to freeze-drying so that the moisture content becomes 1.3 to 1.5%, and then the rice is stored frozen, prior to crushing to powder. Choi further teaches (Paragraph 0029) cut kelp (seaweed) is subjected to freeze-drying so that the moisture content becomes 1.3 to 1.5%, and then the kelp is stored frozen, prior to crushing to powder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Chung to make the edible sheet a frozen edible sheet with a moisture content of 0.5 wt% or higher and less than 3.0 wt% in view of Miyake, Karwowski, Horie, and Choi since each of Chung, Miyake, Karwowski, Horie, and Choi are directed to food products comprising grains and/or seaweed, since grains and seaweed, the two moisture containing components of the bonded sheet, are known to be prepared with moisture contents of 0.5 wt% or higher and less than 3.0 wt% as shown by Karwowski and Horie, since storing frozen grain and frozen seaweed with moisture contents of 0.5 wt% or higher and less than 3.0 wt% is known in the art as shown by Choi, since freezing a food product comprising grains and seaweed is known in the art as shown by Miyake, since both freezing and reduction of moisture content are well known methods of preservation that will extend the shelf life of the edible sheet and allow for transportation for distribution, so that a consumer may eat the edible sheet at a preferred time and location, since the original color, taste, and aroma of the germinated brown rice are not lost under the freeze-drying conditions of a moisture content of 1.3 to 1.5% (Choi, Paragraph 0023), and since the original color, taste, and aroma of kelp are not lost under the freeze-drying conditions of a moisture content of 1.3 to 1.5% (Choi, Paragraph 0029).
Furthermore, the claimed moisture content of 0.5 wt% or higher and less than 3.0 wt% per 1 g of the edible sheet 60 days immediately after freezing would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Chung based upon factors such as the intended texture of the edible sheet (where less moisture will make the sheet harder and more brittle while more moisture will make the sheet softer), the type of seaweed and grain used to produce the edible sheet, the structural integrity of the edible sheet (where too little moisture will make the sheet brittle while excess moisture will make the sheet soft and unrigid), consumer preferences in moisture content, desired storage life (where excess moisture can allow bacteria to grow), the intended storage period (where lowering the temperature below freezing and removing moisture will extend the shelf life of the product), etc. Furthermore, the Applicant does not appear to have identified any unique or unexpected benefit from the claimed moisture content of 0.5 wt% or higher and less than 3.0 wt% per 1 g of the edible sheet 60 days immediately after freezing that would render it non-obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Chung teaches (Paragraph 0032) the term "cereal sheet" refers to a thin sheet of any shape that is prepared by using cereals such as rice powder and/or starch, and water.
Regarding claim 3, as shown above, Chung teaches (Paragraph 0023) preparing the bonded sheet using a laver sheet.
Regarding claim 4, Chung teaches (Paragraph 0036) the cereal sheet may be attached to the laver sheet by using a bonding solution selected from alternatives including water, salt water, and starch water.
Regarding claim 8, Chung is silent on the edible sheet being a frozen edible sheet.
Miyake teaches (Page 1, lines 13-15; Page 2, lines 90-82; Page 3, lines 107-109) a frozen mochi processed product, wherein mochi made from 100% glutinous rice (grain) may be used, and, in certain embodiments, the mochi may be wrapped in seaweed and quickly frozen and stored in a frozen state.
Choi teaches (Paragraph 0001, 0023) a method for producing kelp powder tea by mixing red yeast germinated brown rice powder and kelp powder, wherein fermented germinated brown rice is subjected to freeze-drying so that the moisture content becomes 1.3 to 1.5%, and then the rice is stored frozen, prior to crushing to powder. Choi further teaches (Paragraph 0029) cut kelp (seaweed) is subjected to freeze-drying so that the moisture content becomes 1.3 to 1.5%, and then the kelp is stored frozen, prior to crushing to powder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Chung to make the edible sheet a frozen edible sheet in view of Miyake and Choi since each of Chung, Miyake, and Choi are directed to food products comprising grains and/or seaweed, since storing frozen grain and frozen seaweed is known in the art as shown by Choi, since freezing a food product comprising grains and seaweed is known in the art as shown by Miyake, since both freezing and reduction of moisture content are well known methods of preservation that will extend the shelf life of the edible sheet and allow for transportation for distribution, so that a consumer may eat the edible sheet at a preferred time and location, since the original color, taste, and aroma of the germinated brown rice are not lost under the freeze-drying conditions of a moisture content of 1.3 to 1.5% (Choi, Paragraph 0023), and since the original color, taste, and aroma of kelp are not lost under the freeze-drying conditions of a moisture content of 1.3 to 1.5% (Choi, Paragraph 0029).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (US 20140170291 A1) in view of Schultz (US 20190364937 A1), Inoue (WO 2015170631 A1), Tutuncu (US 20030118628 A1), Vander (WO 2010103483 A2), Miyake (JP H02100645 A), Karwowski (US 20060246195 A1), Horie (JP S62134070 A), and Choi (KR 20180010518 A), and further in view of Palm kernel Safety Data Sheet.
Regarding claim 7, Chung is silent on the edible oil and fat being in a solid or semi-solid state at room temperature.
As shown above, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Chung to use hydrogenated palm kernel oil as the edible oil and fat for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 1.
Furthermore, it is known in the art that hydrogenated palm kernel oil is a solid at room temperature.
For example, Palm kernel Safety Data Sheet teaches (Section 3, 9) Hydrogenated Palm Kernel Oil is soft solid with a melting point of 110°F (above room temperature).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (US 20140170291 A1) in view of Schultz (US 20190364937 A1), Inoue (WO 2015170631 A1), Tutuncu (US 20030118628 A1), Vander (WO 2010103483 A2), Miyake (JP H02100645 A), Karwowski (US 20060246195 A1), Horie (JP S62134070 A), and Choi (KR 20180010518 A), and further in view of Villagran (US 20120021113 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Chung does not explicitly state that the edible sheet has a hardness of 200 gf to 1,200 gf.
However, food products with the claimed hardness are known in the art. For example, Villagran teaches (Paragraph 0016) a fabricated snack chip made from rice flour (grain sheet) with a hardness from about 100 gf to about 900 gf.
Furthermore, the claimed hardness of 200 gf to 1,200 gf would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Chung based upon factors such as the type of seaweed and the type of grain (where different seaweeds and grains would have different structural and texture properties that would affect the hardness), the serving temperature of the edible sheet, the moisture content of the edible sheet, the desired mouthfeel of the edible sheet (where greater hardness will result in a crunchier edible sheet), etc. Furthermore, the Applicant does not appear to have identified any unique or unexpected benefit from the claimed hardness of 200 gf to 1,200 gf that would render it non-obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, these arguments have been made in view of amendments to the claims, and, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Chung (US 20140170291 A1) in view of Schultz (US 20190364937 A1), Inoue (WO 2015170631 A1), Tutuncu (US 20030118628 A1), Vander (WO 2010103483 A2), Miyake (JP H02100645 A), Karwowski (US 20060246195 A1), Horie (JP S62134070 A), and Choi (KR 20180010518 A), as shown above.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that persons having ordinary skill would not modify a sheet according to Chung or modifications thereof based on the freezing of the product of Miyake since Miyake is not directed to sheet-shaped items, and since Miyake is directed to retaining moisture during heating, not preventing ingress of moisture during the freezing process and would provide no teaching or suggestion regarding an edible sheet having a moisture content of 0.5 wt% or higher and less than 3.0 wt% per 1 g of the edible sheet 60 days immediately after freezing as in claim 1, the Examiner notes that Miyake is not relied upon alone, and maintains that Miyake demonstrates that products comprising both grain and seaweed may be successfully frozen. Furthermore, the Applicant has not identified how the shape of the product would adversely affect the freezing process. Additionally, while the product of Miyake does not disclose the claimed moisture content, such a moisture content is known and achievable for grain and seaweed products, including frozen ones, as demonstrated above by Karwowski, Horie , and Choi.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that Karwowski is completely silent regarding freezing, let alone moisture levels following freezing and storage in such conditions, and persons having ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to use the ranges of moisture of Karwowski in a frozen product, and would have no expectation of such moisture levels being maintained following frozen storage, the Examiner maintains that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, freezing of grain and seaweed products is known the art from Miyake and Choi. Additionally, the Applicant has not identified why the moisture level would change significantly during freezing or why the claimed moisture content or storage time has criticality or demonstrates an unexpected result, that could not be obtained via routine experimentation.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Horie is silent regarding freezing or storage of the product, and that Horie does not provide a teaching or suggestion regarding an edible sheet having a moisture content of 0.5 wt% or higher and less than 3.0 wt% per 1 g of the edible sheet 60 days immediately after freezing as in claim 1, the Examiner maintains that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, freezing of grain and seaweed products is known the art from Miyake and Choi. Additionally, the Applicant has not identified why the moisture level would change significantly during freezing or why the claimed moisture content or storage time has criticality or demonstrates an unexpected result, that could not be obtained via routine experimentation.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, claim 1 and all dependent claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant' s arguments, see page 8, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 and 7-9 under Double Patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN P TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2652. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm.
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.
/AUSTIN PARKER TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792