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 5, 6 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 1 recites “said food”, claim 6, in line 10 recites “said food” and claim 8 in line 1 recites “said food”. Each recitation of “said food” should be changed to “said buoyant food”.
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 3 and 6-11 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.
Regarding claims 3 and 9, claims 3 and 9 each recites “wherein said densely packed mass of spices and flavorings includes ingredients selected from the group consisting of salt, sugar, onion powder, ground pepper, red pepper flakes, garlic powder and cayenne pepper. It is unclear how many ingredients are required by the claim and what specific ingredients are required by the claim. It is unclear if the claim requires multiple ingredients that can be considered spices and multiple ingredients that can be considered flavorings, or if the claim only requires the spices and flavorings to include one ingredient from the list. It is additionally unclear if multiple ingredients from the list are required because the claim recites “includes ingredients comprising”.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites “said densely packaged mass of spices and flavorings”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7-11 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruckner US 2005/0106293 in view of Carroll US 2012/0128836 in view of Porter Boil the Bag Peanuts Instant Pot recipe in view of Boiled Peanuts (Porters Boil the Bag Peanuts).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Bruckner discloses a food package containing food to be boiled in water, said food package comprising a water permeable container (bag 12) and a food disposed in the water permeable container ([0014]-[0017])
Claims 1 and 5 differs from Bruckner in the recitation that the food is specifically a buoyant food. It is noted that applicant discloses that dry peanuts within shells are a buoyant food product as required by claim 5.
Carroll discloses food that can be boiled in water permeable pouches includes nuts ([0026], [0030]).
Porter Boil the Bag Peanuts Instant Pot Recipe discloses a food package containing food to be boiled in the water, said food package obviously comprising a water permeable container, and a buoyant food disposed within the water permeable container, the buoyant food is obviously dry peanuts within shells (see youtube video image stills). It is noted that the package also includes a seasoning blend.
Boiled Peanuts (Porters Boil the Bag Peanuts) discloses that the peanuts are dry peanuts (Pg. 2), providing further support that the peanuts of Porter Boil the Bag Peanuts Instant Pot Recipe are obviously dry peanuts within shells.
Based on the art as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the food of Bruckner to be a buoyant food such as dry peanuts within shells (raw peanuts within shells), since it has been held that “Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I A).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Bruckner discloses that the water permeable container is formed from a plastic film (‘293, [0017]).
Claims 2-3 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruckner US 2005/0106293 in view of Carroll US 2012/0128836 in view of Porter Boil the Bag Peanuts Instant Pot recipe in view of Boiled Peanuts (Porters Boil the Bag Peanuts) in view of Lian WO 2012/059358 in view of Falchun WO 2024/141630 in view of Maggi Vegetable Bouillon Cubes.
Regarding claim 2, Modified Bruckner discloses suggests adding seasoning to boil bags (‘293, [0032], [0034]) (‘836, [0026]).
Claim 2 differs from Modified Bruckner in the recitation that the package specifically comprises a densely packed mass of spices and flavorings within the water permeable container, and that said densely packed mass of spices and flavorings is non-buoyant in water.
Lian discloses that seasonings added to cooking bags includes seasoning and flavors in pressed cube form and that the seasoning includes spices and flavoring (Pg. 3, lines 11-21). Therefore, teaching densely packed mass of spices and flavorings.
Falchun discloses that standard bouillon cubes have a density of about 2 g/cm3 (the density of the MAGGI bouillon cubes was calculated to be about 2 g/cm3) ([0074]), and since objects having a greater density than water sink, standard bouillon cubes can be non-buoyant in water.
Maggi Vegetable Bouillon cubes discloses that bouillons cubes contain multiple spices and multiple flavorings (salt, sugar, artificial and natural flavors, onion powder, spices, garlic powder, turmeric, dried red bell pepper) (Maggi Vegetable Bouillon Cubes). Therefore, bouillon cubes are obviously considered a densely packed mass of spices and flavorings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Modified Bruckner such that the package specifically comprises a densely packed mass of spices and flavorings within the water permeable container, and that said densely packed mass of spices and flavorings is non-buoyant in water, as suggested by the art above as a whole in order to provide a suitable seasoning for flavoring the food product.
Regarding claim 3, the spices and flavorings includes salt and sugar (bouillon cubes) (‘630, [0003], [0005]) (salt, sugar, artificial and natural flavors, onion powder, spices, garlic powder, turmeric, dried red bell pepper) (Maggi Vegetable Bouillon Cubes).
Regarding claims 6, 7 and 8, Bruckner discloses a method preparing food comprising the steps of providing a water permeable container ([0014]-[0017], Fig 1); sealing food within the water permeable container ([0010], [0015]); providing spices and flavorings in said water permeable container ([0032]-[[0034]); placing said water permeable container including the food into a container of water, boiling said water, and obviously removing said permeable container and said food from said water ([0010]).
Claims 6 and 8 differs from Bruckner in the recitation that the food is specifically a buoyant food. It is noted that applicant discloses that dry peanuts within shells are a buoyant food product as required by claim 8.
Carroll discloses food that can be boiled in water permeable pouches includes nuts ([0026], [0030]).
Porter Boil the Bag Peanuts Instant Pot Recipe discloses a food package containing food to be boiled in the water, said food package obviously comprising a water permeable container, and a buoyant food disposed within the water permeable container, the buoyant food is obviously dry peanuts within shells (see youtube video image stills). It is noted that the package also includes a seasoning blend.
Boiled Peanuts (Porters Boil the Bag Peanuts) discloses that the peanuts are dry peanuts (Pg. 2), providing further support that the peanuts of Porter Boil the Bag Peanuts Instant Pot Recipe are obviously dry peanuts within shells.
Based on the art as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the food of Bruckner to be a buoyant food such as dry peanuts within shells, since it has been held that “Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I A).
Claims 6 and 7 differs from Modified Bruckner in the recitation that the permeable container specifically comprises a densely packed mass of spices and flavorings within the water permeable container, and that said densely packed mass of spices and flavorings is non-buoyant in water.
Modified Bruckner already suggests adding spices and flavorings to boil bags (‘293, [0032], [0034]) (‘836, [0026]).
Lian discloses that seasonings added to cooking bags includes seasoning and flavors in pressed cube form and that the seasoning includes spices and flavoring (Pg. 3, lines 11-21). Therefore, teaching densely packed mass of spices and flavorings.
Falchun discloses that standard bouillon cubes have a density of about 2 g/cm3 (the density of the MAGGI bouillon cubes was calculated to be about 2 g/cm3) ([0074]), and since objects having a greater density than water sink, standard bouillon cubes can be non-buoyant in water.
Maggi Vegetable Bouillon cubes discloses that bouillons cubes contain multiple spices and multiple flavorings (salt, sugar, artificial and natural flavors, onion powder, spices, garlic powder, turmeric, dried red bell pepper) (Maggi Vegetable Bouillon Cubes). Therefore, bouillon cubes are obviously considered a densely packed mass of spices and flavorings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Modified Bruckner such that the permeable container specifically comprises a densely packed mass of spices and flavorings within the water permeable container, and that said densely packed mass of spices and flavorings is non-buoyant in water, as suggested by the art above as a whole in order to provide a suitable seasoning for flavoring the food product.
Regarding the remaining limitation that the method comprises disintegrating said densely packed mass of spices and flavorings, the method made obvious by Modified Bruckner is seen to obviously include disintegrating said densely packed mass of spices and flavorings within the boiling water, since bouillon cubes commonly disintegrate within boiling water (‘630, [0004]) in order to provide flavoring/spice to food/water.
Regarding claim 9, Modified Bruckner discloses the spices and flavorings includes salt and sugar (bouillon cubes) (‘630, [0003], [0005]) (salt, sugar, artificial and natural flavors, onion powder, spices, garlic powder, turmeric, dried red bell pepper) (Maggi Vegetable Bouillon Cubes).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Bruckner discloses that the water permeable container is a mesh bag (perforated plastic film can be considered a mesh) (‘293, [0010],[0017]).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Bruckner discloses that said container is a cooking pot (water bath) (‘293, [0010]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY AXTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0316. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00- 5:30.
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.
/A.A/
Ashley AxtellExaminer, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792