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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-16, 19-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/22/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Okita [US 2005/0136161A1], and optionally in view of Gao [CN 108477534A].
Okita teaches a method for freezing and thawing food (title) by providing food such as sushi with fish (paragraph 0030), obtaining a food core temperature with temperature sensors and a controller for monitoring and adjusting the food product temperature (Figure 3, #118b, 104; paragraph 0040, 0059), initiating a precooling stage for a food product at room temperature of 22C or more wherein it is placed in the freezer at normal operation temperatures (paragraph 0058), initiating an increased cooling rate when the food core temperature falls below 10C (paragraph 0060), the increased cooling rate being achieved by CO2 injection (Figure 4), the increased cooling rate preferably being from 6C to 0C in about 1-10 minutes for a cooling rate of up to 0.6-6.0 C/min (paragraph 0060), and then continued cooling from 0C to -7C in about 10-40 minutes for a cooling rate of 0.175-0.7 C/min (paragraph 0062).
When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “A purine reduction method” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02. The body of the claims do not even mention purine, or how it would be reduced.
It is also clear that the process of Okita would inherently include a purine reduction due to the use of the same materials and processing steps used by applicant.
In the event that Okita does not inherently include purine reduction:
Gao teaches a method for reducing purine in deep-sea fish (title) by performing second precooling step with water at 0-4C (paragraph 0048), a quick cooling step at a first preset cooling rate and a temperature of -35 to -40C to reduce the food below a freezing point or -18C (paragraph 0052), packing the food at a temperature lower than 10C (paragraph 0053), cold storage at lower than -18C (paragraph 0054), an ozone sterilization treatment (paragraph 0051), a preliminary step of removing fishbone and innards as well as cleaning (paragraph 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed purine reduction into the invention of Okita, in view of Gao, since both are directed to methods of preserving food, since Okita already included a quick freezing step to avoid damaging the food cells (paragraph 0060), since release of purine from damaged food cells was a commonly known phenomena, since quick freezing also known to help reduce purine content in foods (paragraph 0024, 0042) as shown by Gao, and since a reduced purine content would enable healthier food for the consumer of the food of Okita, in view of Gao.
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.
Claims 3, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okita as applied above, and further in view of Toledo-Flores et al [US 4,832,972].
Okita teaches the above mentioned concepts. Okita does not explicitly recite storage at the second temperature (claim 3), removing viscera or shell or scale (claim 11), the second temperature being -7 to 0C (claim 13). Toledo-Flores et al teach a method for fish preservation (title) comprising eviscerating a freshly caught fish (column 1, line 60), supercooling the fish to a temperature of -2 to -5C (column 1, line 49), and storing the supercooled fish at a temperature of 0 to -5C (column 1, line 51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed storage temperature and evisceration into the invention of Okita, in view of Toledo-Flores et al, since both are directed to methods of preserving food, since Okita already included fish and freeze preservation, since fish preservation systems commonly included eviscerating a freshly caught fish (column 1, line 60), supercooling the fish to a temperature of -2 to -5C (column 1, line 49), and storing the supercooled fish at a temperature of 0 to -5C (column 1, line 51) as shown by Toledo-Flores et al, since evisceration of fish would have prevented potential contamination of the preserved fish flesh of Okita, and since storage at a temperature of -5C would have further prevented the growth of large ice crystals which would have detrimental impact of fish quality in the method of Okita, in view of Toledo-Flores et al.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okita, in view of Toledo-Flores et al, as applied above, and further in view of Gao [CN 108477534A].
Okita teaches the above mentioned concepts. Okita does not explicitly recite auxiliary sterilization (claim 4) by ozone technology (claim 5). Gao teaches a method for reducing purine in deep-sea fish (title) by performing second precooling step with water at 0-4C (paragraph 0048), a quick cooling step at a first preset cooling rate and a temperature of -35 to -40C to reduce the food below a freezing point or -18C (paragraph 0052), packing the food at a temperature lower than 10C (paragraph 0053), cold storage at lower than -18C (paragraph 0054), an ozone sterilization treatment (paragraph 0051), a preliminary step of removing fishbone and innards as well as cleaning (paragraph 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed ozone sterilization into the invention of Okita, in view of Gao, since both are directed to methods of preserving foods, since Okita already included freezer preservation, since food preservation systems commonly used ozone sterilization in combination with freezer preservation as shown by Gao, and since ozone sterilization would have enabled a safer product for the consumer of Okita, in view of Gao.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okita, in view of Toledo-Flores et al and Gao, as applied above, and further in view of Saklani et al [Ultrasound technology for fish processing and preservation].
Okita, Gao, and Toledo-Flores et al teach the above mentioned concepts. Okita do not explicitly recite enzyme inactivation treatment (claim 6) by ultrasonic technology (claim 7). Saklani et al teach using ultrasonic energy to inactivate enzymes to provide better preservation of fish (page 236). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed ultrasonic enzyme inactivation into the invention of Toledo-Flores et al, in view of Saklani et al, since both are directed food preservation, since Toledo-Flores et al already include a freezer storage step, since fish preservation systems commonly included ultrasonic treatment to inactivate enzymes in fish (page 236) as shown by Saklani et al, and since the ultrasonic enzyme inactivation would have enabled more efficient and effective freezer storage of the food Toledo-Flores et al, in view of Saklani et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-7, 11-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant failed to provide any arguments against Okita.
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 DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792