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 status
The examiner acknowledges the amendment made to the claims on 01/14/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 4, 13-14 and 19 are currently amended. Rest of the claims are previously presented. Claims 1-20 are hereby examined on the merits.
Examiner Note
Any objections and/or rejections that are made in the previous actions and are not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-12, 14-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hockett, “How can I flavor air popped popcorn?” [Online], published in 2019, [retrieved on 2025-10-19]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-flavour-air-popped-popcorn> (hereinafter referred to as Hockett) in view of Kristin, “4th July Fire Cracker Popcorn” [Online], published as least on 2021-01-19, [retrieved on 2025-10-19]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20210119051808/https://modernparentsmessykids.com/4th-of-july-fire-cracker-popcorn/> (hereinafter referred to as Kristin) and Bernstein GB 2388518 A (hereinafter referred to as Bernstein).
Regarding claims 1, 8-12, 14-17 and 19, Hockett teaches a method of making a popped snack food (e.g., spiced popcorn), comprising coating a popped base product (e.g., popped corn) with an oil mixture (e.g., canola oil), followed by coating the freshly oil-coated popcorn with dry spices and seasonings (2nd para.).
Hockett teaches dry spices and seasonings but is silent regarding dry sugar or dry carbonated popping candy.
Kristin in the same field of endeavor teaches a method of making fire cracker popcorn comprising coating the popped popcorn with an oil mixture (e.g., melted white chocolate and vegetable oil) followed by coating the freshly oil-coated popcorn with a dry sugar (e.g., sprinkles) and a dry carbonated popping candy (e.g., Pop Rocks especially Pop Crystals) (“Firework Popcorn” and “Instructions”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hockett by combining or mixing the spices/seasonings of Hockett with sprinkles and Pop Rocks as disclosed by Kristin with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that "it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2144.06. In the instant case, prior art has established that each of the spices/seasoning, sprinkles and Pop Rocks is suitable for flavoring/seasoning a popcorn thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to mix/combine them to form a seasoning mixture for seasoning popcorn.
On the limitations about the proportions of dry sugar, dry carbonated popping candy and dry seasoning in the mixture that comprises the three: Kristin teaches adding Pop Rocks candy or Sprinkles “to taste” (Firework Popcorn). Further, the proportions of a seasoning/spice in a mixture is a conventional result effective variable in the food art. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have varied the amounts of sprinkles, Pop Rocks and spices/seasoning depending, respectively, on the intensity of sweetness, intensity of flavoring brought by the seasoning/spices, and the effect of popping effect brought by the Pop Rocks desired for the spiced popcorn. As such, the proportions of the components recited in claims 1, 8-12, 14-17 and 19 are merely obvious variants of the prior art.
On the newly introduced limitation that the dry carbonated mixture is in a powdery form: Judging from the photos of Kristin, the sprinkles are broadly in powdered form; and Pop Rocks especially Pop Crystals used by Kristin are known to be in granule form thus also reading on the limitation about dry sugar being in the powdery form (See also the last six photos of Kristin). Hockett as modified by Kristin is silent regarding the dry spices and seasonings being powdery.
In the same field of endeavor, Bernstein teaches that it is known to flavor popcorn by adding dried powdered spices to popcorn, often in combination with oil or butter to help adhesion of the spices to the popcorn (page 2, first para.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hockett by using dry spices and seasonings in powdery form, for the reason that such a form of the spices and seasonings is recognized by prior art to be suitable for flavor popcorn.
Regarding claim 3, Hockett teaches what is recited above but is silent regarding coating the oil-coated popcorn with spices/seasoning within 10 seconds of coating the popped popcorn with the oil mixture. However, judging from the description of Hockett, it does not seem that there is a reason or benefit to delay the action of coating the oil-coated popcorn with the spices/seasoning (2nd para.), therefore, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the spices/seasonings coating any time after the popcorn is coated with the oil, as long as the final spiced popcorn is timely served.
Regarding claims 5-6, Hockett teaches sealing the paper grocery bag that holds the oil-coated popcorn after adding all spices and shaking well (2nd para.), which is interpreted to read on the limitation about tumbling the popped base product in a drum, and the limitation about draping a curtain of the dry mixture onto the popped base product.
Regarding claim 7, the description of Hockett suggests that both the oil coating and the spices/seasonings adding are done at ambient temperature (2nd para.) thus reading on the limitation about the temperature.
Regarding claim 20, Hockett teaches what is recited above but is silent regarding coating the oil-coated popcorn with spices/seasoning within 10 seconds of coating the popped popcorn with the oil mixture. However, judging from the description of Hockett, it does not seem that there is a reason or benefit to delay the action of coating the oil-coated popcorn with the spices/seasoning (2nd para.), therefore, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the spices/seasonings coating any time after the popcorn is coated with the oil, as long as the final spiced popcorn is timely served.
Further, Hockett teaches sealing the paper grocery bag that holds the oil-coated popcorn after adding all spices and shaking well (2nd para.), which is interpreted to read on the limitation about tumbling the popped base product in a drum, and the limitation about draping a curtain of the dry mixture onto the popped base product.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hockett in view of Kristin and Bernstein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jenna, “Firecracker Popcorn Recipe” [Online], published on 2022-05-24, [retrieved on 2025-10-19]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://www.heyitsjenna.com/2022/05/24/firecracker-popcorn-recipe/> (hereinafter referred to as Jenna).
Regarding claim 2, Hockett as recited above teaches coating a popped popcorn with oil followed by adding spices/seasoning but is silent regarding the popped popcorn being kettle corn.
Jenna in the same field of endeavor teaches that it is suitable to coat a kettle corn with an oil mixture (e.g., Wilton candy melts) followed by adding a flavoring (e.g., Pop Rocks and sprinkles) to the coated kettle popcorn (“Ingredients” and “Recipe”)/
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hockett by using the kettle corn as the popped popcorn with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that kettle corn is suitable for coating with an oil mixture and flavoring for making a flavored popcorn.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hockett in view of Kristin and Bernstein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Amano US Patent No. 5,608,119 (hereinafter referred to as Amano).
Regarding claim 4, Hockett as recited above teaches adding spices or seasonings to a food (e.g., popcorn) but is silent regarding dry soda seasoning.
Amano teaches adding a flavor material such as soda flavor can be used to flavor a food such as candy (col. 5, ln. 18-21).
Both Hockett and Amano are directed to food that contains a flavoring. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hockett by including soda flavor in the spices/seasoning of Hockett so as to obtain a popcorn that has soda flavor. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to manipulate the amount of soda flavor in the dry mixture for the desired degree of soda flavor. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use soda flavor in powdered form known that the rest of the seasonings are in powdered form.
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hockett in view of Kristin and Bernstein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Freeport US Patent No. 5,585,127 (hereinafter referred to as Freeport).
Regarding claims 13 and 18, Hockett as modified by Kristin and Bernstein as recited above teaches a dry mixture that comprises dry sugar, dry seasoning and dry carbonated popping candy for flavoring popcorn, but is silent regarding including salt in the mixture.
Freeport in the same field of endeavor teaches that salt is a suitable flavoring present in a dry flavorant composition for flavoring popcorn after popping (Abstract; col. 7, ln 3-4; col. 2, line 65-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hockett by including salt in the spices/seasonings of Hockett for delivering saltiness flavor to the popcorn. Salt is known to be served in powder form.
Regarding the amount of salt in the dry mixture: the proportions of salt in a food is a conventional result effective variable in the food art. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would have varied the amount of salt depending on the intensity of saltiness desired for the popcorn. As such, the proportion of salt recited in claims is merely an obvious variant of the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered and the examiner’s response is shown below:
The 35 USC 112 rejection of claim 4 is withdrawn in view of the amendment made to the claim.
In addressing the 35 USC 103 rejection, applicant argues on pages 10-11 of the Remarks that cited arts fail to teach the limitation about the powdery dry carbonated mixture. In particular, applicant argues that Hockett is silent regarding dry sugar or dry carbonated popping candy, and the sprinkles and Pop Rocks are not powdery dry or fine grade dry mixture.
The arguments are considered but found unpersuasive because as set forth in the instant office action, judging from the photos of Kristin, the sprinkles are broadly in powdered form, and Pop Rocks especially Pop Crystals used by Kristin are known to be in granule form thus also reading on the limitation about a sugar being in the powdery form (See also the last six photos of Kristin). As for the spices and seasonings, the instant office action has cited Bernstein that it is known to use dried powdered spices to flavor popcorn. As such, Hockett in view of Kristin and Bernstein meets the limitation about a powdery dry carbonated mixture that comprises dry sugar, dry seasoning, and dry carbonated popping candy. Note that the fine grade powder as applicant argued is not part of the limitations in the claim.
Applicant assert on page 10 of the Remarks that that the powdery dry carbonated mixture could act as a desiccant and/preservative to preserve a carbonated effect and maintain a dryness of the popped base product.
Applicant’s assertions are considered but found unpersuasive because prima facie obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present but not recognized in the prior art. Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. See MPEP 2145 II. In the instant case, prior art has arrived at the limitation about the powdery dry carbonated mixture then the advantages as applicant asserts naturally flow from the teaching of the prior art. On the other hand, it is more expected than unexpected if one find out that dry mixture could help maintain the dryness of a food, and that dry mixture could preserve a carbonated effect, given that Pop Rocks is essentially carbon dioxide trapped in the sugar, creating a popping reaction when sugar dissolves and carbon dioxide bursts.
Applicant argues in the para. that bridges pages 10 and 11 of the Remarks that cited arts fail to teach the claimed proportions of the dry carbonated mixture. Applicant goes to argue that the claimed proportion is critical in performing the desiccant function.
The argument is considered but found unpersuasive. The proportion as recited in the claims is obvious over the teaching of the prior art because Kristin teaches adding Pop Rocks candy or Sprinkles “to taste” (Firework Popcorn). Further, the proportions of a seasoning/spice in a mixture is a conventional result effective variable in the food art. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have varied the amounts of sprinkles, Pop Rocks and spices/seasoning depending, respectively, on the intensity of sweetness, intensity of flavoring brought by the seasoning/spices, and the effect of popping effect brought by the Pop Rocks desired for the spiced popcorn. However, the applicant has not shown any new result associated with the proportions as recited, and the assertion that such a proportion is critical in performing the desiccant effect is essentially conclusive remarks that lacks evidentiary support. See MPEP 716.01(c) II. Attorney arguments cannot take the place of evidence. MPEP 2145 I. Argument does not replace evidence where evidence is necessary.
Applicant argues on page 11 of the Remarks that the claimed invention provides for commercial production using a flow through line, in contrast to home popping as set for the in the prior art.
The argument is considered but found unpersuasive. There is no evidence from applicant that the prior art practice is not suitable for commercial production. It is further noted that commercial production feature is not part of the claim.
For the reasons set forth above, applicant’s arguments on pages 11 regarding other secondary references are not persuasive, either.
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 CHANGQING LI whose telephone number is (571)272-2334. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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.
/CHANGQING LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791