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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, drawn to a method for manufacturing a frozen block in the reply filed on November 12, 2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s further election without traverse of Group IA, drawn to a method for manufacturing a frozen block in the reply filed on March 16, 2026 is acknowledged.
An action on the merits of Group IA, which now encompasses Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, and 15 is provided below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSes) submitted on July 14, 2023, October 28, 2024, February 5, 2025, and Mary 14, 2025 was filed. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “A method for manufacturing a frozen block comprising” in line 1. It appears the claim should recite “A method for manufacturing a frozen block, the method comprising” in order to directly refer to the phrase the transitional phrase “comprising” modifies.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, and 15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the mixture” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the formed product” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “meat and salts” in line 2. It is unclear if this refers to “meat, salts” recited in Claim 1, line 2 or to entirely different meat and salts. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the claim to refer to the same meat and salts.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “vegetables” in line 3 and “alpha starch” in line 4. It is unclear if this refers to “vegetables and alpha starch” recited in Claim 1, line 2 or to entirely different vegetables and alpha starch. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the claim to refer to the same vegetables and alpha starch.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “meat, salts, vegetables, and alpha starch” in lines 1-2. It is unclear if this refers to “meat, salts, vegetables, and alpha starch” recited in Claim 1, line 2. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the ingredients recited in Claim 9 to be the same ingredients recited in Claim 1.
Clarification is required.
Claims 3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12-13, and 15 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 8-9, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petit Gourmet “Homemade Bouillon Cubes” <https://thepetitgourmet.com/homemade-bouillon-cubes/> (published September 27, 2017) (herein referred to as “Petit Gourmet”) in view of Kerwood et al. US 2017/0208851 as further evidenced by To et al. “Effect of blending and pregelatinizing order on properties of pregelatinized starch from rice and cassava” (published February 2020) in further view of Perret et al. US 3,271,167, Chef Glen “Dehydrating Chicken” <https://web.archive.org/web/20180518074408/http://www.backpackingchef.com/dehydrating-chicken.html> (archived on May 18, 2018) (herein referred to as “Chef Glen”), and Spritzler “How Cooking Affects the Nutrient Content of Foods” <https://web.archive.org/web/20191119065901/https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/cooking-nutrient-content#cooking-amp-nutrients> (archived on November 19, 2019) (herein referred to as “Spritzler”).
Regarding Claim 1, Petit Gourmet discloses a method for manufacturing a frozen block (frozen chicken broth stock cubes) (Petit Gourmet, Pages 4-5). The method comprises mixing meat (chicken thighs), salts, and vegetables (leeks, onion, green pepper, garlic cloves, cilantro), forming a mixture containing all ingredients to make a formed product, cooking the mixture by boiling the mixture of formed product, and freezing the cooked formed product (Petit Gourmet, Pages 6-7).
Petit Gourmet is silent regarding the mixture containing alpha starch. Petit Gourmet is also silent regarding steaming the formed product and instead teaches boiling the formed product mixture.
Kerwood et al. discloses a pregelatinized hydroxypropylated starch useful in thickening potable broth liquids (‘851, Paragraph [0025]) wherein pregelatinized starches develop viscosity when dispersed in cold or warm water without the need for further intense heating (‘851, Paragraphs [0035] and [0060]). To et al. provides evidence that it was known in the food art that pregelatinized starch is cooked and dried starch and is also called alpha starch (To et al., Page 103). Therefore, the pregelatinized starch useful in thickening potable broth liquids disclosed by Kerwood et al. is alpha starch as evidenced by To et al. that pregelatinized starch and alpha starch refer to the same thing.
Both Petit Gourmet and Kerwood et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of potable broth liquids. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Petit Gourmet and incorporate alpha starch/pregelatinized starch into the mixture of ingredients of the broth as taught by Kerwood et al. in order to thicken the broth as desired.
Further regarding Claim 1, Petit Gourmet modified with Kerwood et al. as further evidenced by To et al. is silent regarding steaming the formed product. Instead, Petit Gourmet teaches boiling the formed product mixture.
Perret et al. discloses a method of making flavored bouillon by mixing ingredients comprising vegetable based ingredients together and heating the mixture in a steam bath (‘167, Column 5, lines 32-45). Chef Glen discloses a method of dehydrating chicken comprising the step of cutting the chicken and steaming for one hour until falling apart, removing bones, pulling meat apart into small pieces, seasoning with salt, and dehydrating until dry (Chef Glen, Page 4).
Modified Petit Gourmet, Perret et al., and Chef Glen are all directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of cooking ingredients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the boiling method of cooking the ingredient mixture of modified Petit Gourmet and cook the ingredient mixture by steaming as taught by the steaming used to make flavored bouillon of Perret et al. and also steam the chicken meat as taught by Chef Glen since Spritzler teaches that the way you cook your food has a major effect on the amount of nutrients it contains (Spritzler, Page 1) wherein boiling is a water based cooking method that reduces vitamin content of vegetables more than any other cooking method (Spritzler, Pages 2-3) whereas steaming is one of the best cooking methods for preserving nutrients including water soluble vitamins which are sensitive to heat and water (Spritzler, Page 7). Spritzler teaches that steaming has an advantage over boiling in that steaming preserves nutrients of the ingredients of the formed product.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitations “wherein step (A) comprises forming a first raw material by mixing meat and salts, mixing vegetables with the first raw material to form a second raw material, and mixing alpha starch with the second raw material” recites the order of steps in which the ingredients are mixed together. The prior art combination of Petit Gourmet modified with Kerwood et al., Perret et al., Chef Glen, and Spritzler teaches mixing the claimed ingredients together as enumerated in the rejection of Claim 1 above (Kerwood et al. teaches incorporating alpha starch/pregelatinized starch into the ingredient mixture). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the order of mixing the ingredients of modified Petit Gourmet to occur in the claimed order since the selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious in view of In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.C.).
Regarding Claim 5, Petit Gourmet modified with Kerwood et al., Perret et al., Chef Glen, and Spritzler is silent regarding the vegetables being cut to a size of 5 mm to 15 mm in at least one of width, length, and height. However, limitations relating to the size of the intermediate cut vegetables are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art in view of In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.).
Regarding Claim 8, Kerwood et al. discloses the alpha starch (pregelatinized starch) being derived from any native source including waxy corn starch and tapioca starch (‘851, Paragraph [0038]). To et al. provides evidence that it was known in the food art that pregelatinized starch is cooked and dried starch and is also called alpha starch (To et al., Page 103). Therefore, the pregelatinized starch useful in thickening potable broth liquids disclosed by Kerwood et al. is alpha starch as evidenced by To et al. that pregelatinized starch and alpha starch refer to the same thing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Petit Gourmet and use waxy corn starch or tapioca starch as the alpha/pregelatinized starch as taught by Kerwood et al. since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). Kerwood et al. teaches that there was known utility in the food art to use waxy corn starch or tapioca starch (‘851, Paragraph [0038]) to thicken broth liquids (‘851, Paragraphs [0025] and [0060]) such as the broth liquid disclosed by Petit Gourmet (Petit Gourmet, Page 7).
Regarding Claim 9, the mixture of ingredients of modified Petit Gourmet would necessarily have the ingredients attached to each other since Petit Gourmet teaches mixing and cooking the ingredients together (Petit Gourmet, Page 7).
Further regarding Claim 9, the limitations “wherein when the frozen block is placed in water irradiated by a microwave of 2.45 GHz and 700 W for 2 minutes, and stirred, 80 wt% or more of the meat and vegetables based on the total weight of the frozen block including the meat and vegetables are detached from each other within 1 minute immediately after stirring” are limitations with respect to the properties of the claimed frozen block. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established in view of In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP § 2112.01.I.) Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties in view of In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2112.01.II.). Since the prior art of modified Petit Gourmet incorporates the ingredients claimed in Claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the frozen block of modified Petit Gourmet to behave in the same manner as claimed i.e. when the frozen block is placed in water irradiated by a microwave of 2.45 GHz and 700 W for 2 minutes, and stirred, 80 wt% or more of the meat and vegetables based on the total weight of the frozen block including the meat and vegetables are detached from each other within 1 minute immediately after stirring. Furthermore, it is noted that Claim 9 does not specify the particular type of stirring or the amount of force applied in the claimed stirring step. Given that the claim recites a generic stirring step, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of adjusting the force applied during the stirring step such that the claimed amount of meat and vegetables based on the total weight of the frozen block would be capable of detaching from each other within the claimed 1 minute time immediately after stirring.
Regarding Claim 12, Petit Gourmet modified with Kerwood et al., Perret et al., Chef Glen, and Spritzler is silent regarding the vegetables being cut to a size of 5 mm to 15 mm in at least one of width, length, and height. However, limitations relating to the size of the intermediate cut vegetables are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art in view of In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.).
Regarding Claim 15, Kerwood et al. discloses the alpha starch (pregelatinized starch) being derived from any native source including waxy corn starch and tapioca starch (‘851, Paragraph [0038]). To et al. provides evidence that it was known in the food art that pregelatinized starch is cooked and dried starch and is also called alpha starch (To et al., Page 103). Therefore, the pregelatinized starch useful in thickening potable broth liquids disclosed by Kerwood et al. is alpha starch as evidenced by To et al. that pregelatinized starch and alpha starch refer to the same thing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Petit Gourmet and use waxy corn starch or tapioca starch as the alpha/pregelatinized starch as taught by Kerwood et al. since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). Kerwood et al. teaches that there was known utility in the food art to use waxy corn starch or tapioca starch (‘851, Paragraph [0038]) to thicken broth liquids (‘851, Paragraphs [0025] and [0060]) such as the broth liquid disclosed by Petit Gourmet (Petit Gourmet, Page 7).
Claims 3, 6, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petit Gourmet “Homemade Bouillon Cubes” <https://thepetitgourmet.com/homemade-bouillon-cubes/> (published September 27, 2017) (herein referred to as “Petit Gourmet”) in view of Kerwood et al. US 2017/0208851 as further evidenced by To et al. “Effect of blending and pregelatinizing order on properties of pregelatinized starch from rice and cassava” (published February 2020) in further view of Perret et al. US 3,271,167, Chef Glen “Dehydrating Chicken” <https://web.archive.org/web/20180518074408/http://www.backpackingchef.com/dehydrating-chicken.html> (archived on May 18, 2018) (herein referred to as “Chef Glen”), and Spritzler “How Cooking Affects the Nutrient Content of Foods” <https://web.archive.org/web/20191119065901/https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/cooking-nutrient-content#cooking-amp-nutrients> (archived on November 19, 2019) (herein referred to as “Spritzler”) as applied to claim 1 or claim 9 above in further view of “Homemade Bouillon Recipes” <https://www.101cookbooks.com/homemade-bouillon-recipe/> (published August 15, 2020) (herein referred to as “Homemade Bouillon Recipes”).
Regarding Claims 3 and 10, Petit Gourmet modified with Kerwood et al., Perret et al., Chef Glen, and Spritzler is silent regarding the meat being present in an amount of 10 wt% to 25 wt% based on the total weight of the frozen block or the vegetables being contained in an amount of 60 wt% or more and less than 80 wt% based on the total weight of the frozen block.
Homemade Bouillon Recipes discloses a method of making homemade bouillon comprising the steps of placing vegetable ingredients in a food processor and adjusting the ingredients using different herbs and ratio of base ingredients based upon personal preference (Homemade Bouillon Recipe, Page 6).
Both modified Petit Gourmet and Homemade Bouillon Recipes are directed towards the same endeavor of methods of making bouillon. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Petit Gourmet and adjust the concentration of meat and/or vegetables of the frozen block since Homemade Bouillon Recipes teaches using different herbs and ratios of base ingredients based upon personal preference. Differences in the concentration of meat and/or vegetables of the frozen block will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of meat and/or vegetables in the frozen block is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of meat and/or vegetables in the frozen block of modified Petit Gourmet based upon the desired personal preference and flavor profile desired by a particular consumer as suggested by Homemade Bouillon Recipes.
Regarding Claims 6 and 13, Petit Gourmet modified with Kerwood et al., Perret et al., Chef Glen, and Spritzler is silent regarding the meat and the salts being mixed in a weight ratio of 2:1 to 20:1 or the meat and the alpha starch being mixed in a weight ratio of 1:1 to 25:1.
Homemade Bouillon Recipes discloses a method of making homemade bouillon comprising the steps of placing vegetable ingredients in a food processor and adjusting the ingredients using different herbs and ratio of base ingredients based upon personal preference (Homemade Bouillon Recipe, Page 6).
Both modified Petit Gourmet and Homemade Bouillon Recipes are directed towards the same endeavor of methods of making bouillon. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Petit Gourmet and adjust the concentration of meat relative to the concentration of salts and/or alpha starch of the frozen block since Homemade Bouillon Recipes teaches using different ratios of base ingredients based upon personal preference. Differences in the concentration of meat relative to the concentration of salts or alpha starch of the frozen block will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of meat relative to the concentration of salts or alpha starch in the frozen block is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of meat relative to the concentration of salts in the frozen block of modified Petit Gourmet based upon the desired personal preference and degree of saltiness flavor profile desired by a particular consumer as suggested by Homemade Bouillon Recipes. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of meat relative to the concentration of alphas starch in the frozen block of modified Petit Gourmet based upon the desired degree of thickness of the frozen block which thickness is influenced by the presence of alpha starch/pregelatinized starch as taught by Kerwood et al. (‘851, Paragraphs [0025] and [0060]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jamie “How to Make the Easiest Chicken Broth Cubes” <https://www.theherbalspoon.com/single-serving-chicken-broth/> (published February 19, 2014) discloses a method of making concentrated chicken broth comprising freezing concentrated chicken broth in ice cube trays and storing in a container (Jamie, Page 8).
Self “How to Make Broth Cubes (The Best Broth Concentrate)” <https://www.frugalnutrition.com/how-to-make-broth-cubes-the-best-broth-concentrate/> (published January 15, 2015) discloses a method of making broth cubes comprising potatoes for slightly starchier and thicker broth and vegetable and meat scraps (Self, Page 5).
Cara “The Nutrition of Homemade Stock in an Easy to Use Freezable Cube” <https://healthhomeandhappiness.com/always-have-broth-on-hand-with-easy-homemade-broth-gelatin-cubes-in-your-freezer.html> (published January 11, 2015) discloses a method of making a homemade freezable cube stock comprising the steps of making a gallon or more of chicken or beef stock from beef marrow stock bones or chicken wings, reducing the volume of the gallon to 2-3 cups by simmering with the lid off, scooping out marrow from the bones, adding sea salt, adding grassfed gelatin when the stock is cool or warm, pureeing the marrow and thoroughly mixing the gelatin, simmering again over medium to low heat until the gelatin is melted, removing from heat and chilling for at least 2 hours, cutting into cubes, transferring the cubes to freezer bags, and storing the bags upright once frozen (Cara, Pages 3-4).
Kindelsperger “Weekend Project: Freeze Chicken Stock in Ice Cube Trays” <https://www.thepauperedchef.com/article/weekend-project-freeze-chicken-stock-in-ice-cube-trays> (published October 19, 2011) discloses a method of freezing chicken stock in ice cube trays comprising the steps of combining onion, carrots, celery, raw chicken carcasses, and water in a large pot, heating to bring the water to a boil, skimming off any foam that comes to the surface, reducing the heat to keep liquid at a simmer, cooking the stock, pouring the stock in a bowl, discarding all chicken and vegetable pieces, straining the stock through a sieve, refrigerating overnight, pouring the stock into ice cube trays, freezing the trays until completely frozen, and transferring to zip lock bags (Kindelsperger, Pages 1-4).
Sue “Homemade Bouillon Cubes” <https://www.backcountrypaleo.com/homemade-bouillon-cubes/> (published July 9, 2015) discloses a method of making homemade bouillon cubes comprising real broth made from chicken stock and different edible wild greens containing vitamins and minerals as desired depending of flavor preferences at the moment (Sue, Page 2) and extra salt to combat adrenal fatigue and the assure better shelf life, concentrating the broth by boiling until condensed, pouring the condensed broth into a glass canning jar, refrigerating the jar to cool the broth completely, placing the jar of solid broth in a pot of water that comes up just above the broth line, heating just until the outer surface of the broth is soft enough the slide the whole chunk out of the jar, taking out the jar out of the water and separating the gelled broth from the glass, sliding the gelled broth out, liquefying the gelled broth over low heat, mixing the greens with the liquefied broth until a mixture of a thick paste holds, and letting sit to meld the flavors, and dehydrating and packaging in an air tight container and freezing (Sue, Pages 3-9).
Barbone “6 Ways to Cook with Better Than Bouillon” <https://www.thekitchn.com/6-ways-to-cook-with-better-than-bouillon-248410> (published January 15, 2020) discloses Better than Bouillon is a food base made of flavored paste made of ground meats, vegetables, and salt that can be used to make quick broths or enhance other recipes (Barbone, Page 3).
Smorenburg et al. WO 2009/068378 discloses a fortified bouillon cube comprising at least 2 wt% potato starch in the form of modified starch or native starch or flour instead of starch (‘378, Page 5, lines 10-20) and salt (‘378, Page 10, lines 18-24).
Ying WO 2006/063690 discloses a method of preparing bouillon or seasoning cubes (‘690, Page 2, lines 34-35) comprising the step of mixing one or more of herbs, spices, flavor enhancers, vegetable particulates, and meat powder (‘690, Page 5, lines 25-27).
Kuwahara et al. EP 3 750 410 discloses a potato starch composition that can be used as a thickening material for foods (‘410, Paragraph [0001]).
Gaddipati et al. WO 2019/081396 discloses a method of making bouillon powder (‘396, Page 1) comprising the steps of mixing meat, salts, vegetables, and starch to form a mixture wherein the bouillon powder comprises 2 to 35% amorphous ingredients by weight of the composition of starches (‘396, Pages 8-9).
KR 10-2018-0072653 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed July 14, 2023) discloses a method of making a frozen food block (‘653 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0001]) comprising broth, sauce, and/or seasoning liquid (‘653 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0022]) and various raw materials including blanched meat, vegetables, and seafood into pouch packaging (‘653 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0054]).
Mattson et al. US 2007/0148306 discloses a method of making fresh frozen food form quick frozen vegetables and stock comprising the steps of freezing stock separately form particulate food matter then packaging frozen particulate food with frozen concentrated stock.
Lejeune et al. US 2012/0237636 discloses an agent having an improving effect such as stabilizing thickening agents such as pregelatinized flour and modified starch (‘636, Paragraph [0024]) wherein the agent is useful in culinary aids such as vegetable or meat broths (‘636, Paragraph [0030]).
Papadopoulos et al. US 6,617,446 discloses a cold water swellable starch suitable for use in broths and soups.
Hansson et al. US 5,314,705 discloses a process for preparing a frozen meal comprising the steps of cooking pieces of meat and then separating from a bouillon and cooled to at least a refrigeration temperature and mixing a thickening agents with a sauce including the bouillon and cooling the mixture and allowing to stand to gel the thickening agent to obtain a gelled sauced mixed with the meat pieces and formed into a block that is then frozen.
Gaddipati et al. US 2021/0030041 discloses a method of making a bouillon tablet comprising a coprocessed salt starch fiber mass which is mixed with salt.
Widedermann et al. US 2020/0130925 discloses a capsule comprising bouillon made with steam (‘925, Paragraph [0013]).
Pirotta et al. US 4,970,084 discloses a method of making food comprising premoistening food pieces using steam or bouillon and tumbling the premoistened food pieces with pregelatinized starch.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICSON M LACHICA whose telephone number is (571)270-0278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5pm, EST.
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.
/ERICSON M LACHICA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792