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 .
The amendment filed 3/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 8-10, 12, 14-15 are pending. Prior objections and rejections not included below are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments.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.
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, 2, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kageyama (US 5860356) in view of Ford (https://www.beyondkimchee.com/korean-rice/, September 2014, reference is made to the provided archival version).
Regarding Claim 1, Kageyama teaches a sealed, sterile package containing rice (Column 1, Lines 61-65) that is cooked (Claim 1, Step d). Note that a cooked package of rice meets the limitation of “instant” rice.
Regarding the limitation that the “multi-grain rice is comprised in an amount of 90 parts by weight or more”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to place any amount of multi-grain rice, including 90 parts by weight or more, in the container. Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific limitations recited in instant claims are for any particular purpose or solve any stated problem, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable ranges of the method disclosed by the prior art by normal optimization procedures known in the art.
Kageyama teaches that the rice is sterile (Column 1, Line 67), which is interpreted to meet the limitation of “microorganisms…negative within a shelf life”. Note that for the purposes of examination, the limitation of “negative within a shelf life” is interpreted as no microorganism growth within the shelf life of the product.
Kageyama teaches that the instant rice is sterile but does not address the F0 value (Column 1, Lines 61-65). However, given that the sterile instant rice of Kageyama is prepared by pressurized steam (Column 2, Line 5), and given that the instant Specification teaches pressurized steam sterilization [57] and additionally that the F0 value is sufficient to exhibit a “sufficient sterilization effect”, the product of Kageyama is interpreted to have undergone a “condition of F0 value of 4 or higher”, as claimed.
Kageyama teaches that the sealed container is steamed (heated) after sealing of the container (Column 6, Lines 3-8). Therefore, the instant rice of Kageyama is considered to be prepared so that heat of 90 °C or higher is not applied after the sterilizing and before sealing of the container. Note that a broad reasonable interpretation of the term “sterilizing”, as set forth in Line 10 of the Claim, encompasses a process which comprises cooking the grains. Provided that the process of Kageyama produces grains in a container with an F0 value of 4 or more, and the container is subsequently sealed, the process of Kageyama is interpreted to produce a product which meets the limitation(s) of the Claim. Note that the Claim does not require that “sterilizing” be a single process step, nor does the Claim specify the degree to which the sterilizing step cooks the grain/rice.
Kageyama teaches additional ingredients in the rice (Column 4, Line 36) but does not specifically address the inclusion of mixed grains as Claimed.
Ford teaches that grains such as barley, oat, millet, sorghum, lentils, beans, and peas are common ingredients added to rice (Page 5, “Mixed Grain Rice”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize oats in the rice of Kageyama. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Ford teaches that such an ingredient is a common addition to rice.
Regarding the limitation of dietary fiber and proteins, given that modified Kageyama teaches the composition as claimed, modified Kageyama is interpreted to meet the dietary fiber and protein limitations as claimed. Note that the instant Specification [117-118] teaches that the claimed protein and dietary fiber content is met by the rice and grains; i.e., no supplementation of fiber or protein is required.
Regarding Claim 2, Ford teaches the inclusion of oats (Page 5, “Mixed Grain Rice”).
Regarding the limitation that the “whole wheat or oats with unburst surfaces are contained in amount of 10 parts by weight or less”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to place any amount of oats within the multi-grain rice. Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific limitations recited in instant claims are for any particular purpose or solve any stated problem, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable ranges of the method disclosed by the prior art by normal optimization procedures known in the art.
Additionally, regarding the limitation that the whole wheat or oats have “unburst surfaces”, given that the prior art is similar to the claimed product, with a similar intended use, composition, and processing, there is an expectation that the product of the prior art have the property of unburst surfaces, as claimed.
Regarding Claim 5, Kageyama teaches a rice with edible inclusions (Column 4, Line 36) but does not specifically teach the inclusion of whole wheat or barley.
Ford teaches that grains such as barley is a common ingredient added to rice (Page 5, “Mixed Grain Rice”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize barley in the rice of Kageyama. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Ford teaches that such ingredients are common additions to rice.
Modified Kegayama teaches a multigrain rice mixtures as claimed but does not specifically discuss utilizing 5-15% whole wheat or barley. However, whole wheat and barley are known to have specific characteristics, e.g. taste and nutrition, which one of ordinary skill would understand to impart different characteristics to a food.
Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific limitations recited in instant claims are for any particular purpose or solve any stated problem, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable ranges of the method disclosed by the prior art by normal optimization procedures known in the art.
Regarding Claim 8, Kageyama teaches that the rice is sterile, with a “complete sterilization effect” (Column 1, Line 64). The product of Kageyama is therefore interpreted to meet the limitation of the number of microorganisms after 9 months, as claimed.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Kageyama teaches the instant rice of Claim 1 but does not address the physical properties subsequent to microwave heating as claimed. However, given that the prior art is similar to the claimed product, with a similar intended use, composition, and processing, there is an expectation that the product of the prior art have the physical properties subsequent to microwave heating, as claimed. Note that where 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 either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding Claim 12, Kageyama teaches that the sealed container is steamed (Column 6, Lines 3-8). Note that steam is 100 °C, absent evidence to the contrary.
Kageyama does not address the duration of steaming. However, where Kageyama speaks to the effects impart by steaming, e.g. water absorption and alpha-oxidization of rice starch (Column 6, Lines 5-7), one of ordinary skill would have been able to have adjusted the duration of steaming to have arrived at ratios as claimed through no more than routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 14, Kageyama teaches inclusions such as red beans (Column 4, Line 36).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kageyama in view of Ford, as applied to Claim 1, above, in view of Nakada (JPH0870833A, reference is made to the provided machine translation)
Regarding Claim 15, Kageyama teaches that the sterilizing step is performed via a “flush of…steam” which is then discharged to the atmosphere. Kageyama additionally teaches that the tray is “repeatedly subjected to…steam flush” (Column 4, Lines 4-7), but does not specifically address sequential vacuum, steam sterilization, reduced pressure, cooling, and gas displacement steps.
Nakada teaches a method for sterilizing packaged foods [0001]. The method comprises evacuating the inside of a chamber, performing steam sterilization, applying vacuum (which is reduced pressure), and cooling (Page 4, Paragraphs 5-8). Regarding the limitation of “gas displacement”, given that the instant Specification teaches that a vacuum pressurized sterilizer encompasses gas displacement [57], the method of Nakada is interpreted to meet the limitation of gas displacement as claimed.
Nakada teaches that the method provides a high-quality food without deteriorated quality and flavor [0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the method of Nakada in the steam sterilization step of Kageyama. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to produce a food with high quality and flavor.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kageyama in view of Ford, as applied to Claim 1, above, in view of Kimchimari (https://kimchimari.com/multigrain-rice-instant-pot-japgokbap-recipe/, October 2018).
Regarding Claim 3, Kageyama teaches an instant rice comprising other edible components, as discussed above in regards to Claim 1, but does not discuss the selection of brown rice or black rice for some or all of the rice.
Kimchimari teaches that brown rice and black rice are common additions to multigrain rice mixtures (Page 3). Kimchimari additionally teaches that one of ordinary skill can “basically mix in any number of whole grains and beans” to make a multigrain rice mixture, and that such a mixture is “healthy” and popular with individuals with health issues (Page 3, Paragraph 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize brown rice and black rice, as taught by Kimchimari, in the instant rice of modified Kageyama. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Kimchimari teaches that the addition of brown and black rice to multigrain rice mixtures are healthy.
Regarding Claim 4, Kimchimari teaches an iteration of multigrain rice that does not comprise white rice (Page 4, “Hyeonmi Bap”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kageyama in view of Ford, as applied to Claim 1, above, in view of Agricoze (https://agricoze.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/OrganicBrownRice.pdf)
Regarding Claim 9, modified Kageyama teaches a sterile instant rice but does not discuss the concentration of microorganisms prior to sterilization.
Agricoze teaches that in brown rice, typical microorganism count is <105 CFU/g, which overlaps the claimed range(s). Note that CFU/g is approximately equivalent to CFU/mL.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a rice with the CFU/g property as claimed. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Agricoze teaches that such values are typical for rice.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant argues (Part (i), Pages 4-5 of Remarks) that Kageyama requires a “STEAM RICE COOKING” step prior to sealing and trimming of the container (Figure 1 of Kageyama). The Office infers that Applicant intended to argue that, therefore, Kageyama applies a heat step of 90 °C or higher between sterilizing and sealing, since steaming would be understood by one having ordinary skill as applying heat at a temperature of ~100 °C.
This argument is not convincing. A broad reasonable interpretation of the term “sterilizing”, as set forth in Line 10 of the Claim, encompasses a process which comprises cooking the grains. Provided that the process of Kageyama produces grains in a container with an F0 value of 4 or more, and the container is subsequently sealed, the process of Kageyama is interpreted to produce a product which meets the limitation(s) of the Claim. Note that the Claim does not require that “sterilizing” be a single process step, nor does the Claim specify the degree to which the sterilizing step cooks the grain/rice.
Applicant additionally argues (Part (ii), Page 5 of Remarks) that Kageyama does not teach the dietary fiber and protein content of the Claim.
This argument is not convincing. Where sufficient motivation is provided by Ford to include the claimed grains in the rice of Kageyama, it would have been obvious to have formulated an instant rice with the composition of grains as claimed. Given that modified Kageyama teaches the composition as claimed, modified Kageyama is interpreted to meet the dietary fiber and protein limitations as claimed. Note that the instant Specification [117-118] teaches that the claimed protein and dietary fiber content is met by the rice and grains; i.e. no supplementation of fiber or protein is required.
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 DEBORAH LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5685. The examiner can normally be reached 12-8 Eastern Time.
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.
/D.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights