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Those rejections not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.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 1-3, 5-10, 12-16, 18-19 and 21-24 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 21 and 22 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 21 and 22 recite the limitation, “substantially water-insoluble.” This limitation is not supported in Applicant’s originally filed disclosure. At best, Applicant’s specification refers to “a poorly soluble calcium salt having low solubility in water.” (see for example, page 1, lines 25-26).
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 21 and 22 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 21 and 22 recite the limitation, “a metal salt that is substantially water-insoluble at a pH of greater than 6.5.” While Applicant’s specification at page 7, lines 25-26 discloses that, “a poorly water-soluble metal salt represents a metal salt having a solubility lower than or equal to 200 mg/100g of water, it is not clear whether a “substantially water-insoluble” metal salt is the same as the above defined poorly water-soluble metal salt.
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 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-16, 18, 19, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 3879566) in view of Lapre (US 5795606), Kamada (US 4085234) and Ootori (JP 2014-076036) and in further view of any of Sako (US 20150110937), Takayama (US 20220079198), Kishihita (WO 2018190310), and/or Galuska (US 20150147445).
A machine translation has been relied on for Ootori (JP 2014-076036).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Cox teaches a method for keeping qualities of cooked rice (see column 1, lines 4-11) comprising bringing a polyvalent cation-containing liquid into contact with rice (see column 4, lines 20-45 which teaches a calcium citrate solution and a solution that can comprise calcium chloride; see column 3, lines 50-53 which discloses calcium citrate) and thereafter subjecting the rice to boiling to produce cooked rice (see column 4, lines 37-45 which teaches that rice has been placed into water that contains calcium chloride and citrate and then is boiled). By teaching that the rice has been subject to boiling with a polyvalent cation containing liquid, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Cox is teaching that the rice would contain some amount of the polyvalent cation. It is further noted that calcium chloride and calcium citrate are known types of chemicals that comprise polyvalent cations are disclosed on page 7, lines 4-5 and 20-23 of Applicant’s specification as filed.
Claims 1 and 8 differs from Cox in specifically reciting, “after the boiling bringing an alginate-containing liquid in contact with the cooked rice that comprises a polyvalent cation introduced by the polyvalent-cation containing liquid before the boiling.”
Lapre (US 5795606) teaches providing a liquid (see column 9, lines 36-41, 53-55) that can comprise polyvalent cations (column 8, lines 1-7) and an alginate (see column 7, line 61 - alginate) which can be used for contacting with cooked rice (see column 7, lines 50-53; see column 9, lines 53-65 where the alginate-containing liquid acts on the rice after the rice is cooked by boiling; see column 10, lines 64-66). Lapre teaches that the purpose of using this liquid solution is to reduce the rice’s glycemic response (see the abstract). Lapre also teaches that cross-linked coatings can provide resistance to dirt and bacteria (see column 5, lines 7-17). Lapre, also teaches that the polyvalent cation-containing liquid and the alginate-containing liquid are added separately (see column 9, lines 40-41). Kamada also teaches that it has been known to first contact rice with a polyvalent cation solution and then contact the rice with a sodium alginate solution (see column 7, example 5) and where this contacting would also have formed a gel on the rice and to the interior of the rice (see the abstract; column 4, lines 67 to column 5, line 5). Similarly, Ootori teaches food such as rice (see paragraph 12) and where the rice can be first contacted with a polyvalent cation and then contacted with an alginate solution (see paragraph 9, “the method of claim 3….” And claim 3; paragraph 16 which discloses calcium such as calcium lactate and calcium chloride - similar to the teachings above). Ootori teaches that such foods can be soft (see paragraph 7) and that the formed gel can reduce stickiness for subsequent use of the food such as for shaping (see the abstract and paragraph 7)
To therefore modify Cox who already teaches contacting the rice with a polyvalent cation liquid and to bring the rice containing the polyvalent cation, into contact with a liquid that comprises alginate, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of providing a coating that can reduce the rice’s glycemic response while also providing resistant to dirt and bacteria.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used the teachings of Lapre, Kamada and Ootori and to have contacted Cox’s cation contacted, boiled rice with an alginate (i.e. after the boiling) as an obvious rearrangement of steps for achieving a similar function as already suggested by Lapre which is to provide a cross-linked coating on the boiled rice that can reduce the rice’s glycemic response while also providing resistant to dirt and bacteria and because Ootori teaches that such an order for producing a gel can provide the desired softness and can have reduced stickiness and shapeability. It is further noted that Applicant’s specification also appears to disclose that the purpose of the alginate is for reacting with the polyvalent cation to form a gel (see page 9, lines 19-23; page 12, lines 14-15), which is similar to why Lapre and Kamada teach using an alginate.
Claims 1 and 8 differ from the above combination in specifically reciting the step of refrigerating the rice after the contact with the alginate-containing liquid, in order to maintain a quality of refrigerated cooked rice and for producing refrigerated cooked rice.
However, it is noted that it has been conventional to store cooked rice in refrigerated conditions and which rice can be first treated with a polyvalent cation and alginate.
For example, Sako teaches cooked rice which can be conventionally stored at room temperature as well as refrigerated storage (see paragraph 39 and 52).
Takayama teaches cooked rice (see paragraph 72) which has been treated with a solution that can comprise a polyvalent cation such as calcium citrate (paragraph 44) and sodium alginate (paragraph 49) and can be stored at room temperature or under a chilled state (see paragraph 76 and see paragraph 84 which teaches temperatures such as 4°C; see paragraph 5 which discloses chilled state as 10°C or less).
Kishihata teaches treatment with alginic acid (see paragraph 2 and 62) together with polyvalent cations such as calcium hydroxide and calcium carbonate (see paragraph 65) for forming a gel having an adjustable gel strength (see paragraph 62) and usable for coating food such as cooked rice (see paragraph 66, “cooked rice”). The cooked rice has been taught to be stored by refrigerating (see paragraph 162).
Galuska teaches rice products (see page 7, claim 22) which are treated with a combination of a polyvalent cation and an alginate (see paragraph 26-27) and which product can also be acidified for providing suitable storage at temperatures from room temperature to refrigerated temperature (see paragraph 34).
Therefore, the art teaches that it has been conventional to refrigerate rice that has been cooked and treated with a polyvalent cation and an alginate to provide a gel structure to the rice. Since the Cox/Lapre/Kamada/Ootori combination teaches providing a gel structure to the cooked rice, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination and to refrigerate the rice after contact with the alginate liquid, for the purpose of storing rice that has been treated in a similar manner in a known way.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Cox teaches that the rice is immersed in the polyvalent cation-containing liquid and then the rice is boiled (see column 4, lines 35-46: the rice can be placed in cold water comprising the polyvalent cation and then is brought to a boil).
Regarding claims 5, 12, 15 and 18, the claimed range of 0.01 parts by mass or greater of the polyvalent cation (and an alginate) with respect to 100 parts by mass of raw rice, equates to a percentage of 0.01% or greater. Cox teaches that the citrate (i.e. calcium citrate) can be used at 0.2-1.5% by weight of the rice (see column 4, lines 20-34). Therefore, Cox teaches an amount of the polyvalent cation within the claimed range.
Regarding the alginate, Lapre teaches that the cross-linkable polysaccharide can be used as part of a 2 grams per 100 ml of solution, with 10g of the uncooked rice (see column 14, lines 57-60; column 10, lines 19-22). This equates to 2 grams of the polysaccharide per 10 grams of rice and Lapre teaches that the polysaccharide can be an alginate (see column 7, line 61). The claimed range of 0.01 parts or greater of alginate per 100 parts of raw rice equates to a percentage of 0.01% or greater. Therefore, Lapre is teaching 2 grams alginate per 10 grams rice or 20g alginate per 100g of rice (i.e. 20%), and therefore falls within the claimed range. On column 17, example 2, Lapre suggests 1 gram of sodium alginate per 100 grams of the uncooked rice, which also falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Lapre teaches a concentration of the alginate in the alginate solution can be 2% by weight, because at column 14, lines 57-60, Lapre teaches 2% of the polysaccharide to be used with the rice and because Lapre also teaches that the polysaccharide can be an alginate. On column 17, example 2, Lapre suggests a 1% sodium alginate solution, which also falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Cox teaches that the polyvalent cation-containing liquid contains a metal salt that is poorly water- soluble and would form a polyvalent cation at pH of 6.5 or lower, because the reference teaches using calcium citrate (see column 3, lines 52-53) and because on page 7, lines 20-23, Applicant’s specification refers to calcium citrate as a metal salt that is poorly water-soluble and would form a polyvalent cation at pH of 6.5 or lower.
Regarding the limitation of, the polyvalent cation-containing liquid is brought into contact with the rice before the boiling or the steaming, Cox teaches contacting rice with the polyvalent-cation containing liquid and then is boiled, as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 8 and therefore teaches brining the polyvalent cation containing liquid in contact with rice before the boiling.
Regarding claims 16 and 19, the claimed range of 0.01parts by mass or greater of the polyvalent cation (and an alginate) with respect to 100 parts by mass of raw rice, equates to a percentage of 0.01% or greater. Cox teaches that the citrate (i.e. calcium citrate) can be used at 0.2-1.5% by weight of the rice (see column 4, lines 20-34). Therefore, Cox teaches an amount of the polyvalent cation within the claimed range.
Regarding the alginate Lapre teaches that the cross-linkable polysaccharide can be used as part of a 2 grams per 100 ml of solution, with 10g of uncooked rice (see column 14, lines 57-60; column 10, lines 19-22). This equates to 2 grams of the polysaccharide per 10 grams of rice and Lapre teaches that the polysaccharide can be an alginate (see column 7, line 61). The claimed range of 0.01 parts or greater of alginate per 100 parts of raw rice equates to a percentage of 0.01% or greater. Therefore, Lapre is teaching 2 grams alginate per 10 grams rice or 20g alginate per 100g of uncooked rice (i.e. 20%), and therefore falls within the claimed range. On column 17, example 2, Lapre suggests 1 gram of sodium alginate per 100 grams of rice, which also falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Kamada teaches that calcium chloride, calcium citrate as well as calcium carbonate can be the source of dissociable ions used for reacting with alginates to form a gel (see paragraph 16 of the machine translation). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination and to have used calcium carbonate instead of calcium citrate or calcium chloride, for example, based on a substitution of one source of polyvalent cations for another, both recognized to be used for the same purpose of facilitating gelling with an alginate.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and in further view of Sugisawa (JP H07-106126).
A machine translation has been relied on for Sugisawa (JP H07-106126).
Regarding claim 6 and 13, Lapre teaches that the polysaccharide solution can comprise a 0.01-10% solution (see column 10, lines 19-22). Lapre also teaches that the coating can preferably extend over about 50% of the surface area of the rice (see column 8, lines 12-22). Therefore, Lapre teaches varying the concentration of alginate in the solution and varying the amounts of the solution used.
While Lapre is not specific as to 1-50 parts by mass of the alginate containing liquid being brought into contact with 100 parts by mass of the rice that has been boiled or steamed, Sugisawa also teaches a weight ratio of less than 0.6 parts of the alginate solution per 1 part of the rice can result in partial coating of the rice (see page 2, lines 67-69) and therefore overlaps with the claimed 1-50parts of the alginate liquid per 100 parts of the rice.
Since Lapre teaches that it can be desirable to only partially coat the rice, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination and to have used less than 0.6 parts of the alginate solution per 1 part of rice, for the purpose of providing only partial coating of the rice.
It is also noted that Ootori teaches using 10g of a 10% sodium alginate solution, per 800g of rice (see paragraph 24), which equates to 10 parts of the sodium alginate solution per 800 parts rice or 0.0125 parts sodium alginate per 1 part rice. The claimed amount equates to 0.01 – 0.5 parts sodium alginate liquid per 1 part rice. Therefore, Ootori teaches using amounts of the sodium alginate containing liquid that fall within the claimed range. Ootori teaches that the sodium alginate solution is to react with a calcium polyvalent cation solution such as calcium lactate (see paragraph 24) for the purpose of providing a heat resistant gel that can result in the rice being more easily molded (see paragraph 8).
Since the combination already suggests using a combination of an alginate solution and a polyvalent cation solution for forming a gelled coating on the surface of boiled or steamed rice, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used other known amounts of the alginate containing solution, as taught by Ootori, for the purpose of producing a heat-resistant gelled coating on the rice.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bocabeille (FR 2724821) in view of “McGlynn (“The Importance of Food pH in Commercial Canning Operations”) and Ootori (JP 2014-076036) and in further view of Trueck (EP 0758529) and in further view of any of Sako (US 20150110937), Takayama (US 20220079198), Kishihita (WO 2018190310), and/or Galuska (US 20150147445).
PubChem – Calcium Sulfate has been relied on as evidence.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Bocabeille teaches providing cooked rice (see page 2 of the machine translation lines 20-24: “grains of rice” “cooked or pre-cooked”) and contacting the cooked rice with an alginate (page 2 of the machine translation, line 26) and a polyvalent cation source (see page 3 of the machine translation, line 14). Bocabeille teaches mixing the cooked rice with the gelling solution and the calcium solution (see page 3, line 20) and therefore teaches contacting cooked rice with a liquid comprising a polyvalent cation source and an alginate.
Claims 21 and 22 differ from Bocabeille in specifically reciting that the cooked rice has a pH of 6.5 or lower.
However, McGlynn teaches that cooked rice such as wild rice, is known to have a pH of 6-6.4 for example (see the table on page 7). To therefore modify Bocabeille, who is not limiting regarding the type of rice, and to use another known type of cooked rice, such as wild rice having a pH of 6-6.4 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based on a substitution of one type of cooked rice for another.
Regarding the polyvalent cation source comprises a metal salt that is substantially water insoluble at a pH of greater than 6.5 and forms a polyvalent cation at a pH of 6.5 or lower, Bocabeille teaches a polyvalent cation source such as calcium sulfate (see page 3, line 18) which is also substantially water insoluble (see page 4, line 13: calcium sulfate is poorly soluble). This is further evidenced by PubChem, which discloses a solubility of calcium sulfate of 0.2g/100mL, or 200mg/100g (see page 8 of 38: “solublity in water, g/100ml at 20°C: 0.2”). Since water would have had a pH of greater than 6.5, Bocabeille is teaching a polyvalent cation source that is substantially water insoluble at a pH of greater than 6.5 and would have formed a polyvalent cation at a pH of 6.5 or lower.
If it could have been construed that calcium sulfate was not substantially water insoluble at a pH of greater than 6.5 and forms a polyvalent cation at a pH of 6.5 or lower, then it is noted that:
Ootori teaches food such as rice (see paragraph 12) and where the rice can be contacted with a polyvalent cation and contacted with an alginate solution (see paragraph 9, “the method of claim 3….” And claim 3; paragraph 16 which discloses calcium such as calcium lactate and calcium chloride - similar to the teachings above). Ootori teaches coating foods (see paragraph 7) using a gel and that the formed gel can reduce stickiness for subsequent use of the food such as for shaping (see the abstract and paragraph 7). Ootori teaches that the calcium can be calcium citrate or calcium carbonate, which would also have been expected to be substantially water insoluble at a pH of greater than 6.5 and form a polyvalent cation and dissociate at a pH of 56.5 or lower, because on page 7, lines 20-23, Applicant’s specification refers to calcium citrate and calcium carbonate as a metal salt that is poorly water-soluble and would form a polyvalent cation at pH of 6.5 or lower.
Bocabeille is not limiting regarding the specific polyvalent cation since on page 3, lines 18-19, calcium sulphate is but one example of a calcium salt. Therefore, to modify Bocabeille and to use another polyvalent cation that is also substantially water insoluble at a pH of greater than 6.5 and would form a polyvalent cation at a pH of 6.5 or lower, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, based on a substitution of one type of polyvalent cation source for another, both used for the purpose of gelling an alginate solution.
Regarding the liquid having a pH of greater than 6.5 such that the metal salt does not ionize to release the polyvalent cation until contact with the rice having a pH of 6.5 or lower, and wherein, upon contact with the rice having the pH of 6.5 or lower the metal salt ionizes and releases the polyvalent cation, which reacts with the alginate and forms a gel on or within the rice,” it is noted that Trueck teaches providing a combination of a source of polyvalent cations and alginate in a solution which is at neutral pH so that the alginate and the calcium source do not prematurely gel (see column 3, lines 9-20). Trueck further teaches that the food phase has a pH of between 3.7 to 6 (see column 2, lines 52-55) and mixing of this acidic food phase with the solution comprising alginate and the source of polyvalent cations allows for the gelling reaction to commence (see column 3, lines 25-30).
Ootori further teaches at paragraph 19 that an acidity of 2-6 is used to dissociate calcium ions from a poorly soluble calcium containing food and react with alginic acids.
Since Bocabeille in view of McGlynn teaches a food that has a pH that is less than 6.5, and since Bocabeille teaches a combination of an alginate with a source of polyvalent cations, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have ensured that Bocabeille’s liquid was at a netural pH to prevent inadvertent gelling of the polyvalent cation source and the alginate and to use the acidity of the food to facilitate gelling upon mixing, because Trueck teaches that this has been a known expedient for how to provide a gelled coating on food pieces in order to preventing the food from becoming too soft so as to retain the requisite texture due to dehydration (see column 1, lines 7-11). Because Bocabeille already teaches using a solution alginate and a polyvalent cation source, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have at least tried to use the concept taught by Trueck of using a neutral pH solution, because this would prevent premature gelling while also using the acidity of the food for triggering the gelling between the alginate and the polyvalent cation source.
Claims 21 and 22 recite the step of refrigerating the rice after the contact with the alginate-containing liquid, in order to maintain a quality of refrigerated cooked rice and for producing refrigerated cooked rice.
The claims differ from the above combination in this regard.
However, it is noted that it has been conventional to store cooked rice in refrigerated conditions and which rice can be first treated with a polyvalent cation and alginate.
For example, Sako teaches cooked rice which can be conventionally stored at room temperature as well as refrigerated storage (see paragraph 39 and 52).
Takayama teaches cooked rice (see paragraph 72) which has been treated with a solution that can comprise a polyvalent cation such as calcium citrate (paragraph 44) and sodium alginate (paragraph 49) and can be stored at room temperature or under a chilled state (see paragraph 76 and see paragraph 84 which teaches temperatures such as 4°C; see paragraph 5 which discloses chilled state as 10°C or less)
Kishihata teaches treatment with alginic acid (see paragraph 2 and 62) together with polyvalent cations such as calcium hydroxide and calcium carbonate (see paragraph 65) for forming a gel having an adjustable gel strength (see paragraph 62) and usable for coating food such as cooked rice (see paragraph 66, “cooked rice”). The cooked rice has been taught to be stored by refrigerating (see paragraph 162).
Galuska teaches rice products (see page 7, claim 22) which are treated with a combination of a polyvalent cation and an alginate (see paragraph 26-27) and which product can also be acidified for providing suitable storage at temperatures from room temperature to refrigerated temperature (see paragraph 34).
Therefore, the art teaches that it has been conventional to refrigerate rice that has been cooked and treated with a polyvalent cation and an alginate to provide a gel structure to the rice. Since the combination teaches providing a gel structure to the cooked rice, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination and to refrigerate the rice after contact with the alginate liquid, for the purpose of storing rice that has been treated in a similar manner in a known way.
Response to Arguments
On page 10 of the response, Applicant urges that the particularly claimed sequence of contacting the rice with a polyvalent cation before cooking, cooking the rice, contacting the cooked rice with alginate after cooking and thereafter refrigeration can provide significantly superior properties to the rice and that the sequence is not an arbitrary arrangement of known processing steps.
These urgings are not sufficient to overcome the rejection because the prior art is already teaching contacting rice with a solution comprising a polyvalent cation, then boiling the combination to produce cooked rice and after the boiling treating with an alginate for a particular purpose, such that it would have been reasonable to expect similar results from the prior art teaching of the same steps. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Further regarding the comparison between Test Example 11-3 and Test Example 12-2, it is noted that while Example 12-2 discloses that the alginate contacting the rice prior to the polyvalent cation demonstrated a hardness and amount of water that was less favorable to Example 11-3, it is also noted that the comparison uses differing amounts of the alginate and the calcium lactate. Applicant’s examples specifically refer to immersion with calcium lactate for 30 minutes prior to boiling with a specific amount of calcium lactate as well as a specific amount of alginate (see Test Example 5 and 11 on pages 21-22 and pages 28-29). Therefore, the data does not provide sufficient specificity as to how and if variations in the particular concentrations of the polyvalent cation, the type of polyvalent cation would have affected the rice treatment if at all. For example, Example 11-3 uses 0.088 parts by mass alginate and 0.11 parts by mass of calcium ions relative to 100 parts by mass of raw rice, whereas Example 12-2 uses 0.15 parts by mass alginate and 0.13 parts by mass calcium ions. It is not clear whether these differences as well as the specific immersion times, would also have resulted in variance in the results.
On page 11-12 of the response, Applicant urges that Cox does not teach or suggest the presently claimed sequence of steps and Lapre does not disclose the claimed sequence of first treating with a polyvalent cation before cooking and then contacting with alginate after cooking; and Kamada is not directed to refrigerated cooked rice; and Ootori also does not suggest the claimed steps for the purpose of maintaining the quality of refrigerated cooked rice, let alone recognize that the order of treatment is significant to the resulting refrigerated rice properties.
These arguments have been considered but are not sufficient to overcome the rejection because Cox is already teaching a first step of containing a polyvalent cation source with rice, then cooking the combination by boiling. Lapre teaches that the gelling rice by containing the rice with a polyvalent cation and an alginate has been advantageous for reducing the rice’s glycemic response and to provide resistance to dirt and bacteria and both Kamada and Ootori teach that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the gelling can be achieved by first contacting the rice with a polyvalent cation source and then with an alginate. Since Cox already teaches that the rice has been first treated with a polyvalent cation source, the prior art teaches provide a reasonable expectation of success is subsequently treating Cox’s treated rice with an alginate for the purpose of providing a gelled layer on Cox’s rice which would advantageously also reduce the glycemic response of the rice, provide protection against dirt and bacteria and reducing the stickiness of the product.
Further on pages 12-13 of the response, Applicant urges that reversing the order of treatment (i.e. first treating with an alginate and then treating with a polyvalent cation) would provide an inferior product compared to first treating with a polyvalent cation and then treating with an alginate; and the cited references fail to provide one of skill in the art with any teaching or suggestion that the particular sequence now recited in the claims would have been reasonably expected to improve the texture retention, moisture control and moldability after refrigeration. Further on page 13, Applicant urges that the references cited for refrigeration do not supply a teaching or suggestion of the specific treatment sequence as recited in claim 1, nor does it establish that a skilled artisan would have reasonably expected the claimed sequence to achieve the advantageous refrigerated-rice properties.
It is respectfully noted however, that since the prior art provides a reason for modify Cox to treat rice in a similar order as recited in the claims, that the prior art would have been reasonably expected to possess similar properties. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Further on page 13 onto page 15, Applicant reiterates the above remarks, which are not sufficient to overcome the rejection for the reasons already discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 15-18 directed to claims 21 and 22 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by the amendment to the claims.
As claims 21 and 22 have been amended to specifically recite that a cooked rice is contacted with a liquid comprising a polyvalent cation source and an alginate, Cox and Lapre are not relied on. Ootori has only been relied on to teach known sources of polyvalent cations that are also substantially insoluble at a pH of greater than 6.5 and would also have formed a cation at a pH of 6.5 or lower. It is noted however, that Ootori also recognized providing an acidic pH of 2-6, for the known purpose of being able to dissociate calcium ions and react with alginate in order to gel. Similar to the remarks presented above with respect to claims 1 and 8, it is also noted that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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
