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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "step (A)" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step (A)" as “step (A)” has already been stated.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "step (B)" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step (B)" as “step (B)” has already been stated.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "step (C)" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step (C)" as “step (C)” has already been stated.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "step (B)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step (B)" as “step (B)” has already been stated.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "step (C)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step (C)" as “step (C)” has already been stated.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "steam" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the steam" as “steam” has already been stated.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "step (C)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step (C)" as “step (C)” has already been stated.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "step (C)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step (C)" as “step (C)” has already been stated.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "water" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the water" as “water” has already been stated.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "step (D)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step (D)" as “step (D)” has already been stated.
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 1-9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “to attach water” in Claim 1, line 7 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear what “attach” means. Applicant is advised to consider stating “to add water”.
The phrase “rice food … dry curry” in Claim 2, line 2 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how dry curry can be rice food without containing any rice.
The phrase “steam … is water vapor” in Claim 4, line 2 is vague and indefinite as is unclear whether there is steam or is it water vapor at a temperature at or below 100 oC. Water vapor includes both steam and vapors that are at and below 100 oC.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the processed cooked rice" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the processed cooked rice food".
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the processed cooked rice" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the processed cooked rice food".
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the processed cooked rice" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the processed cooked rice food".
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the processed cooked rice" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the processed cooked rice food".
The phrase “the conveying devices” in Claim 5, line 7 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear what plural devices Applicant is referring to as only a single device is set forth.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the processed cooked rice" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the processed cooked rice food".
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the processed cooked rice" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the processed cooked rice food".
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the processed cooked rice" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the processed cooked rice food".
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the processed cooked rice" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the processed cooked rice food".
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the processed cooked rice" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the processed cooked rice food".
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the processed cooked rice" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the processed cooked rice food".
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the multiple-grain agglomerate" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the multiple-grain agglomerates".
Clarification and/or correction required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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.
/BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793 August 19, 2025
Prosecution Insights