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 .
Status of the Application
Receipt of the Request for Continued Examination (RCE under 37 CFR 1.114) and the Response and Amendment filed 3 March 2026 is acknowledged.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-5 and 7-17
Withdrawn claims: None
Previously canceled claims: None
Newly canceled claims: 6
Amended claims: 1, 7, and 9
New claims: 10-17
Claims currently under consideration: 1-5 and 7-17
Currently rejected claims: 1-5 and 7-17
Allowed claims: None
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3 March 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 and 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (US 2018/0320104 A1) in view of Oyama et al. (JP 2003284515 A, cited on the IDS filed on 9 May 2023, see Translation).
Regarding claims 1-2, Abe teaches an oil composition containing fat and oil (oil is fat), an ionic surfactant, and a polyhydric alcohol ([0016]).
wherein a content of the ionic surfactant is 0.1% by mass or more and 5% by mass or less with respect to the total amount of the oil composition – the oil composition comprises 0.5% or more and 10% or less of the ionic surfactant with respect to the total amount of the oil composition ([0023] – [0024]). The claimed range of 0.1% or more and 5% or less overlaps the disclosed range of 0.5% or more and 10% or less. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I).
the ionic surfactant is a lysophospholipid – the ionic surfactant is an amphoteric surfactant ([0033]), in which the amphoteric surfactant is a lysophospholipid ([0037]).
a content of the fat and oil is 8% by mass or more and 65% by mass or less with respect to a total amount of the cooked rice improver – the oil composition comprises 60% or more and 95% or less of the oil/fat with respect to the total amount of the oil composition ([0023] – [0024]). The claimed range of 8% or more and 65% or less overlaps the disclosed range of 65% or more and 95% or less. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I).
and a difference of L2 value - L1 value calculated by the following definition at 20°C is positive: L1 value: lightness value of the oil composition; L2 value: lightness value of an emulsion obtained by adding 100 times by mass of fresh water to the oil composition ([0017] – [0019]).
Abe does not discuss that the composition is a cooked rice improver or that the cooked rice improver has a viscosity at 20°C of 1,000 mPa-s or more and 50,000 mPa-s or less (re: claim 1) or a viscosity at 20°C of 1,000 mPa-s or more and 10,000 mPa-s or less (re: claim 2).
However, Oyama teaches an emulsified composition for boiling rice (i.e., a cooked rice improver) containing fat and oil, an ionic surfactant (lecithin, including lysolecithin, a lyspohospholipid), and a polyhydric alcohol ([0007] – [0008], claim 9). An object of Oyama’s invention is to prevent the flavor of cooked rice from being deteriorated by the flavor of the edible oil and fat used as a raw material ([0004]). The (lyso)lecithin may be present in an amount of 0.05 to 5% by mass (p. 3, ¶ 4), the edible oil and fat content may be from 20 to 50% by mass (p. 3, ¶ 7), the polyhydric alcohol may be present in an amount from 30 to 70% by mass (p. 3, ¶ 8), and the water content may be from 0.5 to 30% by mass (p. 3, ¶ 10) without detrimental effect. Furthermore, Oyama teaches that the (lyso)lecithin ([0008]), edible oil and fat, polyhedric alcohol, and water content are known result-effective variables affecting the viscosity of the composition. Oyama teaches that if the amount of lecithin, edible oil and fat, and/or polyhydric alcohol exceeds the disclosed upper limits, the viscosity of the emulsified composition becomes high, which is not suitable in terms of production and use (p. 3, ¶¶ 4, 7-8). If the amount of water is too high, the viscosity is remarkably reduced and the emulsion stability is deteriorated (p. 3, ¶ 10).
Regarding the use as a cooked rice improver, the phrase, “cooked rice improver” is a statement of intended use of the composition. A statement with regard to intended use is not further limiting insofar as the structure of the product is concerned. In order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. See MPEP § 2111.02(II). In the present case there is no difference between the oil composition suggested in by Abe as modified by Oyama and the claimed “cooked rice improver”.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the composition of Abe to cooking rice as a cooked rice improver. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to do so where Abe further teaches that the invention relates to an oil composition in which oxidation of oil is inhibited ([0001]), that oil oxidizes in the presence of oxygen in air, moisture, and heat, producing an unpleasant odor and deterioration of taste ([0002]) (i.e., conditions present when cooking rice), and that the self-emulsifying property of the oil composition (indicated by a positive L2-L1 value) aids in inhibiting oxidation of the oil, and because Oyama states that an object of their invention is to prevent the flavor of cooked rice from being deteriorated by the flavor of the edible oil and fat used as a raw material ([0004]). Additionally, the inventions of both Abe and Oyama comprise the same ingredients in similar amounts, indicating compatibility. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so at least because Abe discloses that the oil composition self-emulsifies to an O/W emulsion upon dilution with water ([0060]), which is the case when cooking rice, and Oyama teaches that such emulsions uniformly coat the rice and provide better grain separation (p. 2, ¶ 2).
Regarding the viscosity, where Oyama teaches that the (lyso)lecithin, edible oil and fat, polyhydric alcohol, and water content are known result-effective variables affecting viscosity, and that the viscosity of the composition is important for its use in cooking rice, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the optimal values for the lysophospholipid, edible oil/fat, polyhedric alcohol, and water used in the composition of Abe in view of Oyama, through routine experimentation, to impart the composition with an appropriate viscosity, including a viscosity of 1,000 mPa·s or more and 50,000 mPa·s or less (re: claim 1) or a viscosity at 20°C of 1,000 mPa-s or more and 10,000 mPa-s or less (re: claim 2) as claimed.
Therefore, claims 1-2 are rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Abe and Oyama teach the cooked rice improver according to claim 1.
Abe also teaches that the cooked rice improver has a moisture content of 5% by mass or more and 30% by mass or less with respect to the total amount of the cooked rice improver – “in which a moisture content is 0% or more and 6% or less with respect to the total amount of the oil composition” ([0028]). The claimed range of 5% or more and 30% or less overlaps the disclosed range of 0% or more and 6% or less. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I). Abe further teaches an example wherein the moisture content is 17.1% ([0168]), which lies inside the claimed range.
Therefore, claim 3 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Abe and Oyama teach the cooked rice improver according to claim 1.
Abe also teaches that the polyhydric alcohol contains glycerin and/or a sugar alcohol – Abe teaches that the polyhydric alcohol may be glycerin and/or sugar alcohol ([0014]).
Therefore, claim 4 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Abe and Oyama teach the cooked rice improver according to claim 1.
Abe also teaches that a content of the polyhydric alcohol is 20% by mass or more in terms of solid content with respect to the total amount of the cooked rice improver – the oil composition comprises 3% or more and 35% or less of the polyhydric alcohol with respect to the total amount of the oil composition ([0023] – [0024]). The claimed range of 20% or more overlaps the disclosed range of 3% or more and 35% or less. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Therefore, claim 5 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Abe and Oyama teach the cooked rice improver according to claim 1.
Abe also teaches that a content of the ionic surfactant is 0.5% by mass or more and 5% by mass or less with respect to the total amount of the cooked rice improver – the oil composition comprises 0.5% or more and 10% or less of the ionic surfactant with respect to the total amount of the oil composition ([0023] – [0024]). The claimed range of 0.5% or more and 5% or less lies inside the disclosed range of 0.5% or more and 10% or less. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Therefore, claim 7 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Abe and Oyama teach the cooked rice improver according to claim 1.
Abe also teaches that the difference of L2 value - L1 value is 10.0 or more – ([0021]; [0062]).
Therefore, claim 8 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Abe teaches an oil composition (i.e., a mixture) containing fat and oil (oil is fat), an ionic surfactant, and a polyhydric alcohol ([0016]).
wherein a content of the fat and oil is 8% by mass or more and 65% by mass or less with respect to a total amount of the mixture – the oil composition comprises 60% or more and 95% or less of the oil/fat with respect to the total amount of the oil composition ([0023] – [0024]). The claimed range of 8% or more and 65% or less overlaps the disclosed range of 65% or more and 95% or less. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I).
wherein a content of the ionic surfactant is 0.1% by mass or more and 5% by mass or less with respect to the total amount of the mixture – the oil composition comprises 0.5% or more and 10% or less of the ionic surfactant with respect to the total amount of the oil composition ([0023] – [0024]). The claimed range of 0.1% or more and 5% or less overlaps the disclosed range of 0.5% or more and 10% or less. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I).
the ionic surfactant is a lysophospholipid – the ionic surfactant is an amphoteric surfactant ([0033]), in which the amphoteric surfactant is a lysophospholipid ([0037]).
and a difference of L2 value - L1 value calculated by the following definition at 20°C is positive: L1 value: lightness value of the oil composition; L2 value: lightness value of an emulsion obtained by adding 100 times by mass of fresh water to the oil composition ([0017] – [0019]).
Abe does not discuss a method of producing cooked rice, comprising a step of adding to rice the mixture or that the mixture has a viscosity at 20°C of 1,000 mPa-s or more and 50,000 mPa-s or less.
However, Oyama teaches a method of producing cooked rice, comprising a step of adding a mixture (an emulsified composition for boiling rice) containing fat and oil, an ionic surfactant (lecithin, including lysolecithin, a lyspohospholipid), and a polyhydric alcohol ([0007] – [0008]), and a polyhydric alcohol ([0007]) to rice – “The following method can be exemplified as a method for using the emulsion composition for cooking rice of the present invention. Washed rice and water are added to a rice cooking container, and the emulsion composition for rice cooking of the present invention is added thereto” ([0026], p. 4, ¶ 3). An object of Oyama’s invention is to prevent the flavor of cooked rice from being deteriorated by the flavor of the edible oil and fat used as a raw material ([0004]).
Regarding viscosity, Oyama teaches that the (lyso)lecithin ([0008]), edible oil and fat, polyhedric alcohol, and water content are known result-effective variables affecting the viscosity of the composition. The (lyso)lecithin may be present in an amount of 0.05 to 5% by mass (p. 3, ¶ 4), the edible oil and fat content may be from 20 to 50% by mass (p. 3, ¶ 7), the polyhydric alcohol may be present in an amount from 30 to 70% by mass (p. 3, ¶ 8), and the water content may be from 0.5 to 30% by mass (p. 3, ¶ 10) without detrimental effect. Oyama teaches that if the amount of lecithin, edible oil and fat, and/or polyhydric alcohol exceeds the disclosed upper limits, the viscosity of the emulsified composition becomes high, which is not suitable in terms of production and use (p. 3, ¶¶ 4, 7-8). If the amount of water is too high, the viscosity is remarkably reduced and the emulsion stability is deteriorated (p. 3, ¶ 10).
Regarding the step of adding the mixture to rice, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Abe with the teachings of Oyama to add the composition of Abe to rice. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to do so where Abe further teaches that the invention relates to an oil composition in which oxidation of oil is inhibited ([0001]), that oil oxidizes in the presence of oxygen in air, moisture, and heat, producing an unpleasant odor and deterioration of taste ([0002]) (i.e., conditions present when cooking rice), and that the self-emulsifying property of the oil composition (indicated by a positive L2-L1 value) aids in inhibiting oxidation of the oil, and because Oyama states that an object of their invention is to prevent the flavor of cooked rice from being deteriorated by the flavor of the edible oil and fat used as a raw material ([0004]). Additionally, the inventions of both Abe and Oyama comprise the same ingredients in similar amounts, indicating compatibility. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so at least because Abe discloses that the oil composition self-emulsifies to an O/W emulsion upon dilution with water ([0060]), which is the case when cooking rice, and Oyama teaches that such emulsions uniformly coat the rice and provide better grain separation (p. 2, ¶ 2).
Regarding the viscosity, where Oyama teaches that the (lyso)lecithin, edible oil and fat, polyhydric alcohol, and water content are known result-effective variables affecting viscosity, and that the viscosity of the composition is important for its use in cooking rice, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the optimal values for the lysophospholipid, edible oil/fat, polyhedric alcohol, and water used in the composition of Abe in view of Oyama, through routine experimentation, to impart the composition with an appropriate viscosity, including a viscosity of 1,000 mPa·s or more and 50,000 mPa·s or less as claimed.
Therefore, claim 9 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Abe and Oyama teach the cooked rice improver according to claim 1.
Abe also teaches that the cooked rice improver is not in the form of O/W emulsion – Abe teaches that the L2-L1 value is positive ([0054]), and is thus a self-emulsifying composition, but is not itself an O/W emulsion ([0057] – [0060]).
Claim 10 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 11, Abe and Oyama teach the cooked rice improver according to claim 1.
Abe does not discuss that the fat and oil is 10% by mass or more and 50% by mass or less with respect to a total amount of the cooked rice improver.
However, Oyama teaches emulsified composition for boiling rice (i.e., a cooked rice improver) containing 20% to 50% by mass edible oil and fat and oil, an ionic surfactant (lecithin, including lysolecithin, a lyspohospholipid), and a polyhydric alcohol ([0007] – [0008], claim 9).
Therefore, since Abe and Oyama are directed to similar compositions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have decreased the amount of edible oil in the composition of Abe to a value in the range of 20% to 50% as taught by Oyama with a reasonable expectation that the composition of Abe would maintain its functionality. The disclosed range lies inside the claimed range.
Therefore, claim 11 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Abe and Oyama teach the cooked rice improver according to claim 1.
Abe also teaches that a content of the polyhydric alcohol is 35% by mass or more and 60% by mass or less in terms of solid content with respect to the total amount of the cooked rice improver – the oil composition comprises 3% or more and 35% or less of the polyhydric alcohol with respect to the total amount of the oil composition ([0023] – [0024]). The claimed range of 35% by mass or more and 60% by mass or less overlaps the disclosed range of 3% or more and 35% or less. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Therefore, claim 12 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Abe and Oyama teach the cooked rice improver according to claim 1.
Abe also teaches that the cooked rice improver has a moisture content of 10% by mass or more and 30% by mass or less with respect to the total amount of the cooked rice improver –Abe teaches an example wherein the moisture content is 17.1% ([0168]), which lies inside the claimed range.
Therefore, claim 13 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 14, Abe and Oyama teach the method according to claim 9.
Abe also teaches that the mixture is not in the form of O/W emulsion – Abe teaches that the L2-L1 value is positive ([0054]), and is thus a self-emulsifying composition, but is not itself an O/W emulsion ([0057] – [0060]).
Claim 14 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 15, Abe and Oyama teach the method according to claim 9.
Abe does not discuss that the fat and oil is 10% by mass or more and 50% by mass or less with respect to a total amount of the mixture.
However, Oyama teaches emulsified composition for boiling rice (i.e., a cooked rice improver) containing 20% to 50% by mass edible oil and fat and oil, an ionic surfactant (lecithin, including lysolecithin, a lyspohospholipid), and a polyhydric alcohol ([0007] – [0008], claim 9).
Therefore, since Abe and Oyama are directed to similar compositions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have decreased the amount of edible oil in the composition of Abe to a value in the range of 20% to 50% as taught by Oyama with a reasonable expectation that the composition of Abe would maintain its functionality. The disclosed range lies inside the claimed range.
Therefore, claim 15 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 16, Abe and Oyama teach the method according to claim 9.
Abe also teaches that a content of the polyhydric alcohol is 35% by mass or more and 60% by mass or less in terms of solid content with respect to the total amount of the mixture – the oil composition comprises 3% or more and 35% or less of the polyhydric alcohol with respect to the total amount of the oil composition ([0023] – [0024]). The claimed range of 35% by mass or more and 60% by mass or less overlaps the disclosed range of 3% or more and 35% or less. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Therefore, claim 16 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 17, Abe and Oyama teach the method according to claim 9.
Abe also teaches that the mixture has a moisture content of 10% by mass or more and 30% by mass or less with respect to the total amount of the mixture – Abe teaches an example wherein the moisture content is 17.1% ([0168]), which lies inside the claimed range.
Therefore, claim 17 is rendered obvious.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9, filed on 3 March 2026, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. That is, the present rejections do not rely on Oyama for teaching the claimed L2-L1 value; this feature is taught by Abe et al.
Claims 1-5 and 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as presented hereinabove.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Shellhammer whose telephone number is (703) 756-5525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/JAMES P. SHELLHAMMER/Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/ELIZABETH GWARTNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights