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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 8, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Those rejections not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16, 18-19 and 21-22 are currently pending and rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 9, 13, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 9 recite the limitation, “during immersion” and “during either or both of immersion,” respectively.
Claims 1 and 8 from which these claims depend do not recite an immersion step for contact between rice and the polyvalent cation. Therefore, these claim limitations are not clear as to what step “immersion” is referring to.
Claim 9 recites the limitation, “by boiling” and “boiling of the rice.” Claim 13 recites the limitation, “subjected to boiling or steaming.” These limitations are not clear as to whether they are intending to refer to “the boiling” and “the steaming” of claim 8, or whether these are additional boiling or steaming steps.
Claims 15 and 18 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, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15 and 18 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) and has been included with this Office Action.
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 ) at any time before the boiling, during the boiling or after the boiling (see column 4, lines 37-45 which teaches boiling the rice in water at 212°F). By teaching that the rice has been heated 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 and these chemicals are similar to those recited 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, “bringing an alginate-containing liquid in contact with rice that comprises a polyvalent cation after having been contained in the polyvalent cation-containing liquid and that has been subjected to the boiling.”
Lapre 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 can be one liquid (see column 9, lines 40-41 and lines 53-55, which teach that the polyvalent cation-containing liquid and the alginate-containing liquid can be part of the same liquid mixture). 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). 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 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 newly 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 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 polyvalent cation-containing liquid is brought in contact with the rice during either or both of immersion and the boiling of the rice (see column 4, lines 35-46 – it is noted that the heat treatment as taught by Cox can also be construed as an immersion step and can be construed as a boiling step).
Regarding claims 5, 12, 15 and 18, 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 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.
Claims 3, 10, 16 and 19 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 Emoto (JP H07-108193).
A machine translation has been relied on for Ootori (JP 2014-076036) and Emoto (JP H07-108193).
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 that has pH of 6.5 or lower and has been subjected to the boiling or the steaming, it is noted that Cox teaches contacting rice with the polyvalent-cation containing liquid during boiling, as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 8 and therefore teaches brining the polyvalent cation containing liquid in contact with rice that has been subjected to the boiling.
Claims 3 and 10 differ from the combination in specifically reciting that the contact is with rice that has a pH of 6.5 or lower.
However, Lapre teaches that the alginate liquid is crosslinked via the polyvalent cations (see column 8, lines 1-7; column 10, lines 51-63) and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the crosslinked layer as taught by Lapre would have formed a gel type layer on the rice. This is further taught by Ootori, who teaches that reacting alginates (see paragraph 15 and paragraph 21, line 276 of the machine translation ) with calcium salts such as calcium citrate, calcium chloride, calcium lactate (see paragraph 16) forms a gel (see paragraph 16, lines 210-216). Emoto teaches that this gelling of alginate polysaccharides (see page 2, line 68-70 of the machine translation) with calcium salts (see page 2, lines 81-83) is the result of cross-linking (see page 2, last two lines, onto page 3, first four lines). Further regarding the pH of the rice being 6.5 or lower, Ootori teaches that the gelling of the polysaccharide using the polyvalent cation occurs at a pH of 2-6 (see paragraph 19).
Since the prior art is teaching the use of the polyvalent cations and the alginate for creating a gel layer around rice, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the boiled rice with a pH of between 2-6, as taught by Ootori, for the purpose of forming the desired gelled layer around the rice.
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.
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 1-50parts 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 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 Cox (US 3879566) in view of Lapre (US 5795606), Ootori (JP 2014076036) and in further view of any of Sako (US 20150110937), Takayama (US 20220079198), Kishihita (WO 2018190310), and/or Galuska (US 20150147445).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, 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 ) at any time before the boiling, during the boiling or after the boiling (see column 4, lines 37-45 which teaches boiling the rice in water at 212°F). By teaching that the rice has been heated 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 and these chemicals are similar to those recited on page 7, lines 4-5 and 20-23 of Applicant’s specification as filed.
Claims 21 and 22 differ in specifically reciting, “brining a liquid comprising a polyvalent cation source and an alginate in contact with rice at any time before, during or after the boiling.
Lapre 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 can be one liquid (see column 9, lines 53-55, which teach that the polyvalent cation-containing liquid and the alginate-containing liquid can be part of the same liquid mixture). 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 4….” And claim 4; 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 6) and that the formed gel can reduce stickiness for subsequent use of the food (see the abstract)
To therefore modify Cox and to bring the rice into contact with a liquid containing a polyvalent cation and an alginate, as taught by Lapre and suggested by Ootori, 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 and for providing the requisite softness and reduction in stickiness as desired for the rice.
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 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 Cox/Lapre/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.
Response to Arguments
On pages 9-10 of the response, Applicant urges that working Example 11-3 and Example 12-2 demonstrate that boiling rice with calcium lactate followed by contact with sodium alginate after boiling as well as the order of first contacting with a cation and then contacting with alginate, and subsequently storing at 3°C for two days resulted in a rice product that maintained an appropriate level of hardness, did not become watery and could be molded into shapes - which are all qualities desired for commercial and consumer ready refrigerated products and is in contrast to omitting one or both of the cation treatment and the alginate treatment.
These urgings have been considered but are not sufficient to overcome the rejection for the following reasons. It is initially noted that the prior art is already teaching a first cation treatment step with a subsequent alginate treatment 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). It is further noted that Applicant’s examples 11-3 and 12-2 are not commensurate in scope with the claims and the data does not provide sufficient clarity as to how the claimed process differs from that suggested by the prior art, because the prior art teaches amounts of cation and alginate within the ranges as recited in claims 5-7 and 12-16 and since the combination specifically teaches treating with a polyvalent cation and then adding alginate. For example, claims 1, 8, 21 and 22 allow for bringing a liquid containing any polyvalent cation in any amount, into contact with rice at for any period of time before, during or after the boiling without providing any specificity as to the amount of time for contact between the polyvalent cation and the rice. However, 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 and how it was contacted would have affected the rice treatment. It is also noted that Test Example 13 appears to be directed to using a solution that comprises both a cation and alginate which resulted in a product that was flaky and hard (i.e. Example 13-2). However, since claims 21 and 22 appear to be directed to contacting rice with a liquid comprising both the polyvalent cation and alginate, it is not clear whether a result of being flaky and hard would have been considered desirable or undesirable.
On page 10 of the response, Applicant urges that Cox does not disclose bringing an alginate containing liquid into contact with recite that contains a polyvalent cation and has been subjected to boiling or steaming and then refrigerating.
It is noted however that in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness 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 instance, the secondary references clearly provide a reason to include an alginate to Cox’s rice which has been boiled and in contact with a polyvalent cation - for the purpose of providing a gelled coating on the rice which can help to reduce glycemic response as well as protect the rice. Therefore, the prior art is providing motivation for subsequently adding alginate. The prior art is also teaching that it has been conventional and desirable to store rice under refrigerated conditions.
On pages 10-11 of the response, Applicant urges that Lapre does not disclose or suggest applying the alginate containing liquid after cation treatment of the rice and also does not disclose or suggest that the cation treatment and cooking of rice are performed before the alginate treatment.
These arguments are not sufficient to overcome the rejection because Cox is already treating rice with a polyvalent cation. Cox is not teaching contact with an alginate but Lapre teaches an advantage to contacting a polyvalent cation with an alginate for gelling and Kamada evidences that such gelling can be performed equally by first contacting with the rice with a polyvalent cation and then contact with an alginate for gelling. Ootori also teaches and suggests contact with a polyvalent cation and then contact with an alginate for providing moldability and the requisite softness (see paragraph 7). Therefore since Cox already teaches contacting the rice with a polyvalent cation, and since Kamada teaches that gelling can be achieved by first contacting with a polyvalent cation and then contacting with an alginate, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Cox to subsequently add an alginate because Kamada and Ootori teach that this is a known way to provide gelling to the surface of rice for the purpose of providing the requisite softness and moldability. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Further on page 11 of the response, Applicant urges that Kamada lacks any disclosure or suggestion for the specific order of the cation and alginate treatments or the refrigeration, and Example 12 of Applicant’s specification demonstrates that the particular order of adding the alginate and the polyvalent cation provides unexpected results.
These arguments are not persuasive because Kamada specifically teaches in example 5 on column 7, lines 25-29, that the rice can be first contacted with a polyvalent cation such as calcium chloride and then can be contacted with a sodium alginate solution, for the purpose of providing a gelled coating as part of the rice. Since Cox already teaches first treating with a polyvalent cation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have subsequently have added an alginate as taught by Kamada because Kamada teaches that this order of steps can also provide gelling to the rice. Lapre further teaches that it has been desirable to provide a gelled surface to rice because this can help to control glycemic response and protect the rice. Further regarding Example 12 of Applicant’s specification, it is noted that the example is not seen to be commensurate in scope with the claims for the reasons already discussed above.
The remainder of Applicant’s remarks reiterate those presented above.
Conclusion
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