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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Note: The amendment of 05/26/2026 has been considered.
Claims 11 have been amended.
Claims 14 and 16 are cancelled.
Claims 1-13, 15, 17-19 are pending in the current application.
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 11-13, 15 and 17-19 are examined in the current application.
Any rejections not recited below have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35 of the U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11-13, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada et al., (JP 3702081 B2-Machine translation).
Regarding claims 11, 13: Shimada discloses a method of making frozen molded cooked rice, where the cooked rice substrate is molded into balls and coated with moisture transfer preventing layer comprising vegetable oils (e.g., soybean oil, canola oil) and various seasonings and solid ingredients, and adhering moisture adjusted rice to the surface, grilling and freezing the rice balls (see Shimada abstract; paragraphs [0005]-[0008], [0010]-[0014] and [0018]-[0020]). Moreover, Shimada discloses an embodiment where “dripping can be applied to the surface of the rice ball substrate, and the rice ball substrate coated with this dripping may be roasted. When applying dripping to the rice ball substrate, it is preferably applied before applying the oils and fats, oils and fats containing food materials…” (see Shimada paragraph [0017]). While Shimada fails to disclose the temperature and time of the roasting step, Shimada discloses roasting the rice balls until the desired crunchy/hard texture (i.e., no sagging) is attained (see Shimada paragraph [0019]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the application was filed to have modified Shimada and to have adjusted the roasting time and temperature in order to attain desired texture, and thus arrive at the claimed limitations. As set forth in MPEP §2144.05 discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable, involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12: Shimada discloses of mixing sauce (e.g., soy sauce) with the cooked rice (see Shimada paragraphs [0012] and [0017]).
Regarding claim 15: Shimada discloses a method of making frozen molded cooked rice, where the cooked rice is molded into balls and coated with moisture transfer preventing layer comprising fat/oil and/or sugar solution (i.e., hydrophilic material), followed by baking the balls and freezing (see Shimada abstract; paragraphs [0005]-[0008], [0012]-[0014] and [0020]). Shimada discloses the liquid oil is applied is applied in the range of 0.1 to 5 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the rice ball (see Shimada paragraph [0009]). Since the relative contents recited in claim 15 overlap the relative contents in Shimada, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 17: Shimada discloses freezing the molded cooked rice balls at -18°C for 24 hours (see Shimada paragraphs [0020] and [0033]), which meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 18 and 19: Shimada discloses an outer layer comprising oils and fats, or oils and fats containing food materials (see Shimada paragraph [0017]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 26th 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 5-6 and 8 of the “Remarks” that the prior art reference fails to render the claimed invention obvious, because Shimada discloses of an oil and fat layer between the rice ball substrate and the outer moisture controlled rice layer, but not as the outer layer, as recited in the amended claims. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
While Shimada discloses rice balls coated with moisture transfer preventing layer comprising vegetable oils (e.g., soybean oil, canola oil) and various seasonings and solid ingredients, and adhered moisture adjusted rice on the surface, Shimada also discloses in paragraph [0017] an embodiment where “dripping can be applied to the surface of the rice ball substrate, and the rice ball substrate coated with this dripping may be roasted. When applying dripping to the rice ball substrate, it is preferably applied before applying the oils and fats, oils and fats containing food materials…”
Applicant argues no pages 5-6 of the “Remarks” that the prior art references fail to render the claimed invention obvious, because in the present claims, the outermost oil layer suppresses both outward moisture transfer from the molded cooked rice and inward moisture penetration from the surrounding environment claimed rice balls, whereas Shimada discloses a moisture controlled rice as the outermost layer and the moisture prevention layer (i.e., the oil layer) is below the outer layer and is used to adhere the outermost layer (i.e., moisture controlled rice) to the rice balls, which is a different moisture-transfer prevention mechanism. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
A moisture prevention layer (i.e., oil layer) that is between a rice ball substrate and an outer moisture controlled rice layer, as disclosed in Shimada, would also suppress both outward moisture transfer from the molded cooked rice and inward moisture from the surrounding environment as a moisture prevention layer that is the outermost layer.
Either way, Shimada discloses one embodiment that meets the claimed limitations, where the outermost layer is a moisture prevention layer comprising oil (see Shimada paragraph [0017]).
Applicant argues on pages 6-7 of the “Remarks” that the prior art reference fails to render the claimed invention obvious, because Shimada fails to disclose heating the rice ball until hardening, as recited in the claims. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
While Shimada fails to disclose the temperature and time of the roasting step, Shimada discloses roasting the rice balls until the desired crunchy/hard texture (i.e., no sagging) is attained (see Shimada paragraph [0019]). Accordingly, Shimada teaches of adjusting the roasting time and temperature to attain the desired crunchy product, which meets the claimed limitations.
Applicant argues on page 7-8 of the “Remarks” that the prior art reference fails to render the claimed invention obvious, because Shimada fails to disclose coating the outer layer with liquid oil, and failed to recognize the desired hardness/crunch attained by coating the outer layer with liquid oil. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Shimada discloses an embodiment where liquid oil is applied to the outer surface prior to roasting (see Shimada paragraph [0017]), and roasting until desired hardness/crunch is attained (see Shimada paragraph [0019]).
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 ASSAF ZILBERING whose telephone number is (571)270-3029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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.
/ASSAF ZILBERING/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights