DETAILED ACTION
Background
The amendment dated June 26, 2026 (amendment) adding new claims 9 and 10 has been entered. Claims 1-10 as filed with the amendment have been examined.
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 .
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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-8 of allowed but still 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 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 substantially identical to claims 4-8, as follows:
Claim 4 of the reference application is substantially identical to claim 4;
Claim 5 of the reference application is substantially identical to claim 5;
Claim 6 of the reference application is substantially identical to claim 6; and,
Claim 7 of the reference application is substantially identical to claim 7.
Claim 8 of the reference application is substantially 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1-8 have not been rejected under 35 USC 102 or 103 over any art. After a diligent search, no art or art reference was found that, when taken alone or taken in combination with any other reference discloses or renders obvious a step of loosening a cooled cooked rice while bringing steam into contact with the cooled cooked rice.
The closest art of JPH05068492 A to Kai et al. at Abstract on page 2 discloses (A) cooking rice comprising seasoning and/or processing a rice before or after cooking the rice, (B) cooling the rice to less than 50 °C, (C) adding water and loosening the cooked rice, and then (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 while spraying water to attach water on the rice. At Example 1 on page 6 Kai discloses cooling the rice to a temperature of 40 °C and loosening the cooked polished rice.
Kai does not disclose a step of loosening a cooled cooked rice while bringing steam into contact with the cooled cooked rice as in claim 1; further, Kai does not disclose, even taken in combination with any other art disclose a method comprising a step of loosening the cooked rice while spraying steam into contact with the cooled cooked rice as in claim 6; Kai does not disclose a method comprising loosening the cooled cooked rice while bringing steam into contact with the rice, including the bringing steam into contact wherein the steam is dew-condensed on the surface of the cooled cooked rice as in claim 9; and, Kai does not disclose a method comprising loosening the cooked rice while bringing steam into contact with the cooled cooked rice wherein the difference between a temperature of the surface of the cooled cooked rice and a temperature of the steam is a range of 60 to 101 °C as in claim 10.
The closest art of Foster, K., "The Best Ways to Reheat Leftover Rice", The Kitchn, May 12, 2015, downloaded on August 27, 2026 from https://www.thekitchn.com/the-best-way-to-reheat-leftover-rice-tips-from-the-kitchn-219088 (Foster) discloses at page 5, “2. Steam it on the stovetop” reheating a cooked, refrigerated rice in a steamer with a splash of water, covering and cooking over low heat, stirring occasionally while cooking until the rice is heated through. At page 5., 3 “Bake it in the Oven” Foster discloses baking the cooked, refrigerated rice and a splash of water in a baking dish at 300 °F for 20 minutes or until heated through.
Foster does not disclose a method of making a frozen cooked rice food. Further, Foster does not disclose a step of loosening a cooled cooked rice while bringing steam into contact with the cooled cooked rice as in claim 1; further, Foster does not disclose, even taken in combination with any other art disclose a method comprising a step of loosening the cooked rice while spraying steam into contact with the cooled cooked rice as in claim 6; Foster does not disclose a method comprising loosening the cooled cooked rice while bringing steam into contact with the rice, including the bringing steam into contact wherein the steam is dew-condensed on the surface of the cooled cooked rice as in claim 9; and, Foster does not disclose a method comprising loosening the cooked rice while bringing steam into contact with the cooled cooked rice wherein the difference between a temperature of the surface of the cooled cooked rice and a temperature of the steam is a range of 60 to 101 °C as in claim 10.
KR20120034494 A to Lee (Lee) at [0020] Abstract on page 1 of the Clarivate machine translation 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 forming rice as individual grains without containing a fat component and that do not stick to each other, by cooking in a rice grain perforated cooking plate having in which can be placed the rice. The rice grains are enclosed in grooves in the perforated plate and separated by steam passing through the perforations wherein the rice is converted into rice grains, followed drying to form a dry rice grain having a water content of 10 to 15% by weight.
Lee does not disclose a method of making a frozen cooked rice food. Further, Lee does not disclose any method step comprising loosening a rice while bringing steam into contact with the rice, or any other method comprising loosening a rice as claimed.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s positions taken with respect to claims 1-8 and Kai in view of Lee have been considered but the positions taken with respect to Lee or the shortcomings of Kai as combined with Lee are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any position applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In view of the amendment dated June 26, 2026, the following rejections have been withdrawn as moot:
The rejection of claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH05068492 A to Kai et al. in view of KR20120034494 A to Lee.
The positions taken in the remarks accompanying the amendment dated June 26, 2026 (Reply) have been fully considered but are respectfully not found persuasive for the following reasons:
Regarding the position taken in the Reply alleging that the obviousness type double patenting rejection over allowed application 18/285,169 (allowed application) in view of JPH05068492 A to Kai et al. (Kai) or US4166868 to Ando et al. (Ando) is improper is not found persuasive. The Reply does not address the applicability of allowed application 18/285,169. Kai at [0015] discloses seasoning raw material rice as claimed before cooking it in the same way as claimed in the allowed application 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
Prosecution Insights