DETAILED ACTION
Background
The amendment dated January 26, 2026 (amendment) amending claims 5 and 7 has been entered. Claims 1-8 as filed with the amendment have been examined. In view of the amendment, all outstanding claim objections have been withdrawn.
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 .
Priority
The foreign priority claim and receipt of the foreign priority documents in the instant application has been acknowledged. The Office regrets any inconvenience caused to Applicants as a result of this omission.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-8 of copending Application No. 18/285,169 (reference application) to Kitamura et al. (Kitamura) in view of JPH05068492 A to Kai et al. (Kai), of record, or US 4166868 to Ando et al. (Ando).
All references to Kai refer to the machine translation provided by applicants.
Regarding instant claim 1 and claim 1 of the reference application, both claims recite a method for producing a frozen cooked rice food, comprising: (A) a step of cooking raw material rice to obtain cooked rice; (B) a step of cooling the surface of the rice cooked in step (A) to a temperature in the range of -1 to 45 °C; (C) a step of loosening the cooked rice while bringing steam into contact with the cooked rice cooled in step (B) to attach water to the cooked rice in an amount of 2 to 10 mass% with respect to the mass of the cooked rice; and (D) a step of freezing the cooked rice obtained in step (C). The claims differ in that in loosening step (C) of claim 1 the amount of water recited is 2 to 11 mass%, based on the mass of the cooked rice whereas claim 1 of the reference application recites 2 to 10 mass% water. However, the amount of 2 to 11% water recited in step (C) of claim 1 and the recited 2 to 10 wt% water in claim 1 of the reference application substantially overlap and are not patentably distinct because there is no evidence showing why their difference would produce an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
In addition, claim 1 of the reference application differs from instant claim 1 in that it recites in step (A) seasoning and/or processing before or after cooking a raw material rice.
Kai at Abstract on page 2 discloses a method of making a loosened frozen cooked rice, wherein (at [0026] on page 6) the rice contains no fat or oil. Kai at [0015] on page 5 discloses seasoning a raw material rice before cooking by adding the seasoning to the cooking water.
Ando at col. 1, lines 47064 discloses prepared rice pilaf or curried rice wherein at col. 2, lines 10-35 the rice is washed and seasoned prior to cooking and at col. 2, lines 52-62 the rice is processed by drying after cooking.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Kai or Ando for the instant applicant to season its raw rice material before or after cooking it and would have found it obvious in view of Ando for the instant applicant to process its raw material rice before or after cooking it. All references disclose cooking and preparing rice to provide a pre-cooked or instant rice. The ordinary skilled artisan in the instant application would have desired to season or process its rice as in Kai or Ando in the same manner as claimed in the reference application of Kitamura to provide a cooked rice product having a desired flavor or a clean, dry cooked rice product. Accordingly, the seasoning/or and processing step in (A) of Kitamura does not render claim 1 in the reference application patentably distinct from the instant claim 1.
Regarding instant claim 2, the reference application in claim 2 recites a rice pilaf but not a cooked white rice as in claim 2. However, the specification in the reference application at [0037] discloses that its pilaf comprises cooked white rice. The ordinary skilled artisan in the instant application would have desired to use a white rice as claimed to make pilaf or another seasoned cooked rice in the reference application. The difference between white rice in claim 2 and rice pilaf in claim 2 of the reference application does not render the two patentably distinct.
Claim 3 of the reference application differs from claim 3 in that it recites a temperature for cooling in (B) which is -1 to 25 °C while claim 3 recites a temperature of -1 to 20 °C. The two temperature ranges overlap substantially and are not patentably distinct because there is no evidence showing why their difference would produce an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Claims 4-7 of the reference application are identical to claims 4-8, as follows:
Claim 4 of the reference application is identical to claim 4;
Claim 5 of the reference application is identical to claim 5;
Claim 6 of the reference application is identical to claim 6; and,
Claim 7 of the reference application is identical to claim 7.
Claim 8 of the reference application is identical to claim 8 except that the mass ratio of water attached is 2 to 6 mass% while in claim 8 it is 2 to 7 mass%. The amounts of water attached substantially overlap and are not patentably distinct because there is no evidence showing why their difference would produce an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection as none of the claims of the instant application have been allowed.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH05068492 A to Kai et al. (Kai), of record, in view of KR20120034494 A to Lee (Lee).
All references to Lee refer to the Clarivate machine translation, a copy of which is provided with this Office action. All references to Kai refer to the machine translation provided by applicants.
Unless otherwise indicated or disclosed, percents (%) disclosed without units are interpreted as a weight % (wt%); and mass% and wt% are interpreted as interchangeable.
Regarding instant claims 1-2 and 8, Kai at Abstract on page 2 discloses (A) cooking rice (“raw material rice”), (B) cooling the rice to less than 50 °C, (C) adding a prescribed amount of water and loosening the cooked rice, and (D) freezing the cooked rice. At [0011] on page 4, Kai discloses cooling the rice to as low a temperature as possible to reduce tackiness before loosening the cooked rice. At Example 1 on page 6, Kai discloses cooking polished rice (“white rice” - claim 2), cooling the cooked rice to a temperature of 40 °C, loosening the cooled cooked rice with a scoop while spraying water to attach water to the cooked rice in an amount of 4 wt% water, based on the mass of the cooked rice (claims 1 and 8). Because Kai does not disclose adding fat or oil to its rice in cooking and processing, Kai discloses at [0026] on page 6 loosening a rice without using fat or oil.
Further, and regarding instant claims 4 and 6, Kai does not disclose loosening the cooked rice while bringing steam into contact with the cooled cooked rice and, further, does not disclose a method wherein the steam brought into contact in step (C) is water vapor as in claim 4. Still further, Kai does not disclose a step of loosening the cooked rice while bringing steam into contact in step (C) which is a step of loosening the cooked rice while spraying steam as in claim 6; however, Kai discloses spraying water to attach water to its cooked, cooled rice while loosening the cooked rice.
Lee at [0020] Abstract on page 1 discloses fat-free rice made by a method of boiling or steaming rice to cook it and drying it, wherein in the paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4 the rice is indica rice, a white rice. At page 4, 1st full paragraph, Lee discloses that steam is added to each of the rice grains to form a rice grain. At page 4, 2nd full paragraph, Lee discloses that to form rice grains that do not stick to each other without containing a fat component, a rice grain cooking porous plate is provided to support forming rice in which can be placed the rice grains individually. The porous plate has a structure with perforated holes wherein each of the rice grains is enclosed in grooves and separated by steam passing through the air vents and converted into rice grains, while drying to form a dry rice grain having a water content of 10 to 15% by weight.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Lee for Kai to steam treat its rice as part of Kai’s loosening the rice while spraying of water on the rice. Both references disclose spraying polished rice to add moisture to the surface of the rice and loosening or separating rice grains from each other. The ordinary skilled artisan in Kai would have desired to use the steam treatment of Lee to attach water to polished rice as part of Kai’s loosening step (C) to separate the cooked rice grains and provide a less sticky outer layer on the cooked rice of Kai while adding water and with minimal heating of the cooked rice.
Further regarding instant claim 4, the Office considers the claimed steam as water vapor to include the steam of Lee at page 4, 2nd full paragraph. The Office interprets the claim as reciting steam comprising water vapor.
Regarding instant claim 3, Kai at [0011] on page 4 discloses (B) cooling its cooked rice to a temperature of from 0 to 50 °C, which the claimed temperature of from -1 to 20 °C overlaps. The ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in Kai to cool its cooked rice to the claimed temperature because Kai discloses the claimed cooling temperature as desirable for preparing cooked rice for loosening.
Regarding instant claim 5, Kai at Example 1 as modified by Lee at Abstract and page 4, 2nd full paragraph discloses applying steam to the rice in the grooved porous plate and then applying hot air in the grooved porous plate to dry the rice. The Office considers the claimed step of loosening the cooked rice by air pressure to include the drying of Kai as modified by Lee.
Regarding instant claim 7, the rice in Example 1 of Kai at [0019] is transferred to a tray for loosening. The Office interprets the claimed loosening the cooked rice in step (C) [as] a step of loosening the cooked rice after spreading or while spreading the cooked rice to be 100 g per space of area (100 to 300 cm2)x height (0.1 to 3.0 cm), or at a depth of 1 to 3 cm to include the spreading of the cooked cooled rice of Kai onto a tray as in Example 1 of Kai to facilitate the loosening process. Regarding the dimension of the surface, the Office interprets the claim as reciting a ratio of rice mass to surface area to give a measure of its depth and not as a limit on the dimension of a support, tray or conveyor for the rice.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s positions taken with respect to claims 1-8 and Kai in view of Satake 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.
In view of the amendment dated January 26, 2026, the following rejections have been withdrawn as moot:
The rejection of Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in regard to the antecedent basis for the limitation “succeeding conveying device” and "the conveying devices" in lines 6-7.
In view of the remarks accompanying the amendment dated January 26, 2026 (Reply), the following rejections have been withdrawn:
The rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH05068492 A to Kai et al. in view of JP2000245364 A5 to Satake et al. because neither reference discloses bringing steam into contact with cooked rice; and,
The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH05068492 A to Kai et al. in view of JP2000245364 A5 to Satake et al. and JP H1176059 A to Koresawa.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply at pages 6 and 7 alleging that the obviousness type double patenting rejection over application 18/285,169 in view of JPH05068492 A to Kai et al. (Kai) is improper because Kai does not does all of the features of the instant claims, respectfully this position is not found persuasive and its logic cannot be followed. Kai at [0015] discloses seasoning raw material rice as claimed before cooking it in the same way as claimed to give substantially the same cooked rice as claimed. The ordinary skilled artisan in the instant application would have found it routine to season rice before or after cooking it in view of Kai. It matters not whether Kai anticipates the instant claims or, taken alone, renders them obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW E MERRIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-H 8:00A-5:30P and alternate Fridays 8:30A-5P.
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 H 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.
/ANDREW E MERRIAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1791