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 .
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.
The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4,6,7,10,11,13,15,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azumai(English translation JP2004-242545) in view of Food Network.com(Fried Rice Arancini).
Regarding claims 1-3,13, Azumai teaches a molded rice comprising an inner and an outer, wherein the outer includes rice, a binder and ingredients. Specifically, Azumai teaches that the molded rice product comprises an outer comprising glutinous rice(rice and a binder)([0005]) and a colorant([0020]) and an inner comprising embedded ingredients([0009]).
Azumai teaches that the surface moisture is 59.5 to 63.0% and the core moisture is 58 to 62%([0018]). The core as described in Azumai is the rice(outer) and embedded material in the rice(inner). Therefore, the rice as the “inside of the outer” has a moisture content of 58 to 62% and the “outside of the outer” has a moisture content of 59.5 to 63.0%. Therefore, moisture content of the inside of the outer is 2.5% or more higher than a moisture content of the outside of the outer.
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed 3% or more and that taught by Azumai are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a "slight" difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not "render the claims patentable" or, alternatively, that "a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties".
Furthermore, Azumai teaches that the outside surface is to be “scorched”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the “outside of the outer” have less moisture difference than the inside of the outer, i.e. moisture content of the inside of the outer is 3% or more higher than a moisture content of the outside of the outer, in order to achieve the “scorched outer surface.
Azumai does not specifically teach that the ingredients have sizes of 5 mm or more and are included in an amount of 5 to 40 wt% based on the total weight of the molded rice. Azumai is also silent on the hardness of the outer surface of the molded rice is 200 g or more. However, it would have been obvious to adjust the size and amount of the embedded ingredient depending on the taste and texture desired in the composition. It would have been obvious to adjust the hardness of the outer surface by adjusting the time and temperature of grilling/baking depending on the texture desired.
Azumai teaches that the rice in the outer is baked or grilled([0009]) to have a scorched surface(abstract) but does not specifically teach that the rice is fried rice. However, Food Network teaches a “Fried Rice Arancini” which is formed by mixing fried rice with other ingredients, forming the rice mixture into a ball, coating the ball with panko, and frying the ball(p.1). It would have been obvious to use fried rice as the rice in Azumai since Food Network teaches that it is a way to use leftover fried rice that is appealing to consumers(see review comments).
Azumai does not specifically teach that the ingredients contain greens, vegetables, fruits, fish, meat, and processed meat. However, Food Network renders obvious using fried rice as the rice in the Arancini balls. Fried rice contains rice that is fried and other ingredients such as egg, meat and vegetable that is also fried. It would have been obvious to include additional ingredients such as vegetables, meat, and egg in with the fried rice as is conventional in a fried rice dish.
Regarding claim 4, Azumai is silent on the ratio of outer: inner. However, it would have been obvious to adjust the ratio of the outer: inner depending on the taste and texture desired in the composition.
Regarding claim 6, Azumai teaches that the inner comprises non-rice material such as shrimp, beef, and curry([0003]).
Regarding claims 7, Azumai teaches a method for preparing molded rice including an inner and an outer comprising([0011]):
(a) preparing ingredients by mixing ingredients and a binder([0005],[0011],mixing glutinous rice and ingredients);
(b) preparing an outer by mixing rice with the ingredients([0011]);
(c) inserting and molding an inner inside the prepared outer([0003]);
(d) drying the molded rice([0014]); and
(e) heat-treating the hot air-dried molded rice for 225 to 235C for 180 to 240 seconds([0014]).
Azumai does not specifically teach two separate drying steps(d and e) that are done with hot air and radiant heat. However, it would have been obvious to adjust the time, temperature, the form of heating in order to arrive at the desired final moisture content.
Azumai does not specifically teach that the rice is fried rice. However, Food Network teaches a “Fried Rice Arancini” which is formed by mixing fried rice with other ingredients, forming the rice mixture into a ball, coating the ball with panko, and frying the ball(p.1). It would have been obvious to use fried rice as the rice in Azumai since Food Network teaches that it is a way to use leftover fried rice that is appealing to consumers(see review comments).
Azumai does not specifically teach mixing fried ingredients with a binder, then mixing fried rice with the fried ingredients. However, Food Network renders obvious using fried rice as the rice in the Arancini balls. Fried rice contains rice that is fried and other ingredients such as egg and vegetable that is also fried. It would have been obvious to mix the fried ingredients such as vegetables or egg first with the binder before addition to rice.
As such, to switch the order of performing process steps, i.e. the order of the addition of the ingredients into the final mixture, would be obvious absent any clear and convincing evidence and/or arguments to the contrary (MPEP 2144.04 [R-1]). “Selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results”
Azumai does not specifically teach that the ingredients have sizes of 5 mm or more. However, it would have been obvious to adjust the size and amount of the embedded ingredient depending on the taste and texture desired in the composition.
Azumai teaches that the surface moisture is 59.5 to 63.0% and the core moisture is 58 to 62%([0018]). The core as described in Azumai is the rice(outer) and embedded material in the rice(inner). Therefore, the rice as the “inside of the outer” has a moisture content of 58 to 62% and the “outside of the outer” has a moisture content of 59.5 to 63.0%. Therefore, moisture content of the inside of the outer is 2.5% or more higher than a moisture content of the outside of the outer.
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed 3% or more and that taught by Azumai are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a "slight" difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not "render the claims patentable" or, alternatively, that "a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties".
Furthermore, Azumai teaches that the outside surface is to be “scorched”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the “outside of the outer” have less moisture difference than the inside of the outer, i.e. moisture content of the inside of the outer is 3% or more higher than a moisture content of the outside of the outer, in order to achieve the “scorched outer surface.
Regarding claim 10, Azumai teaches coating the surface of the molded rice with an edible colorant. It would have been obvious to use a liquid food colorant(edible colorant) on the surface which meets the limitation of a “sauce”([0011]). It would further have been obvious to include a sauce for flavoring as is conventional in sushi and coated rice products.
Regarding claim 11, Azumai teaches that the molded rice can be reheated([0019]) which meets the limitation of a second heat-treating step.
Regarding claim 15, Azumai teaches that the outer has a moisture content of 59.5 to 63.0% on the surface(outside of the outer)([0018]). The only deficiency of Azumai is that the reference discloses 59.5 to 63.0% while the present claims require 55.7% or less.
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed 55.7% and that taught by Azumai are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a "slight" difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not "render the claims patentable" or, alternatively, that "a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties".
As such, Azumai teaches that the outside surface is to be “scorched”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the “outside of the outer” have a moisture content of 55.7% or less.
Regarding claim 16, Azumai teaches a molded rice comprising an inner and an outer, wherein the outer includes rice, a binder and ingredients. Specifically, Azumai teaches that the molded rice product comprises an outer comprising glutinous rice(rice and a binder)([0005]) and a colorant([0020]) and an inner comprising embedded ingredients([0009]).
Azumai teaches that the surface moisture is 59.5 to 63.0% and the core moisture is 58 to 62%([0018]). The core as described in Azumai is the rice(outer) and embedded material in the rice(inner). Therefore, the rice as the “inside of the outer” has a moisture content of 58 to 62% and the “outside of the outer” has a moisture content of 59.5 to 63.0%. Therefore, moisture content of the inside of the outer is 2.5% or more higher than a moisture content of the outside of the outer.
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed 3% or more and that taught by Azumai are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a "slight" difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not "render the claims patentable" or, alternatively, that "a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties".
As such, Azumai teaches that the outside surface is to be “scorched”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the “outside of the outer” have a moisture difference of 3% or more in order to provide the scorched outer surface.
Azumai does not specifically teach that the ingredients have sizes of 5 mm or more and are included in an amount of 5 to 40 wt% based on the total weight of the molded rice, the hardness of the outer surface of the molded rice is 200 g or more. However, it would have been obvious to adjust the size and amount of the embedded ingredient depending on the taste and texture desired in the composition. It would have been obvious to adjust the hardness of the outer surface by adjusting the time and temperature of grilling/baking depending on the texture desired.
Azumai teaches that the rice in the outer is baked or grilled([0009]) to have a scorched surface(abstract) but does not specifically teach that the rice is fried rice. However, Food Network teaches a “Fried Rice Arancini” which is formed by mixing fried rice with other ingredients, forming the rice mixture into a ball, coating the ball with panko, and frying the ball(p.1). It would have been obvious to use fried rice as the rice in Azumai since Food Network teaches that it is a way to use leftover fried rice that is appealing to consumers(see review comments).
Azumai does not specifically teach that the ingredients contain greens, vegetables, fruits, fish, meat, and processed meat. However, Food Network renders obvious using fried rice as the rice in the Arancini balls. Fried rice contains rice that is fried and other ingredients such as egg, meat and vegetable that is also fried. It would have been obvious to include additional ingredients such as vegetables, meat, and egg in with the fried rice as is conventional in a fried rice dish.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments pertaining to the size of the ingredients, the heating time and temperature, and the moisture difference have been addressed above. As such, the applicant has not shown that the difference prior art 2.5% and the claimed 3% or more produces unexpected results.
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 KATHERINE D LEBLANC whose telephone number is (571)270-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM EST M-F.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/KATHERINE D LEBLANC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights