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 .
Response to Amendment
In applicant’s reply on 11/26/2025, the claims were amended. Based on these amendments, rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn. Revised rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 can be found below.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura (JP 2019195292 A), cited in IDS filed 11/20/2023, translation included with this action, in view of USDA (“Keep Food Safe! Food Safety Basics”).
Regarding Claim 1, Fujimura teaches a method for producing a heated food (deep-fried food Par. 2)
a food precursor susceptible to water exudation on heating (immediately after cooking moisture of ingredients shifts to the clothing Par. 8, garments refer to all materials that adhere to the surface of ingredients Par. 4)
pretreating food precursor by applying a composition containing a monovalent metal salt of alginic acid and a slightly water-soluble divalent metal salt to the food precursor (monovalent metal salt of alginic acid and a salt of a divalent metal in a mix for deep-fried clothing, attaching liquid clothing to ingredients, the salt of the divalent metal has a solubility in water of 20°C of 0.1% by mass or less Par. 11)
heating the pretreated food precursor (cooking Par. 11)
and performing a gelling prevention measure to prevent the alginic acid in the composition from gelling after completion of the pretreatment and before performing the heating so that the gelling of the alginic acid occurs during heating, the gelling prevention measure comprising controlling the temperature of the food precursor immediately before applying the composition thereto in the pretreatment at or below 30°C (when the drip liquid of ingredients comes in contact with the divalent metal salt and the monovalent metal alginic acid salt, a gel is formed Par. 21; applied to a frozen chilled product Par. 12). It is noted that it is obvious that the ingredient (such as Fujimara mentions, livestock) when fried would release some moisture and as the gelling occurs when in contact with moisture, some of the gelling would occur during cooking.
controlling the time in which the temperature of the pretreated food precursor is 40°C or higher, and controlling the time in which the temperature of the pretreated food precursor is in the range of from 10°C to 20°C (clothes attached ingredients were lined up and wrapped and stored in a refrigerator Par. 30; continuously stored at refrigerated temperatures Par. 27).
Though Fujimura teaches continuous storage of pretreated food precursor at refrigerated/freezer temperatures does not teach the amount of time after treating before moving into the refrigerator/freezer, specifically the time in which the temperature of the pretreated food precursor is 40°C or higher so as not to be 2 hours or more, and the time in which the temperature of the pretreated food precursor is in the range of from 10°C to 20°C so as not to be 12 hours or more. Fijumara also does not teach wherein "prevention of alginic acid from gelling" means prevention of the gelling to such a level that the non-gelling ratio measured by a method for determining non-gelling ratio during the time period from after completion of the pretreatment to before performing heating is 50% or higher or wherein the method for determining non-gelling ratio comprises washing a surface of a sample of a food precursor after the pretreatment with neutral running water to wash away the non- gelled portions of the composition from the surface, leaving the gelled portions attached to the surface, and measuring a total area of the composition remaining on the surface of the sample, from which a non-gelling ratio is calculated by formula:
non-gelling ratio (%) = {(surface area of sample - total area of gelled portions)/surface area of sample} x 100.
USDA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches controlling the time in which the temperature of the pretreated food precursor is 40°C or higher so as not to be 2 hours or more, and controlling the time in which the temperature of the pretreated food precursor is in the range of from 10°C to 20°C so as not to be 12 hours or more (refrigeration of perishable foods within 2 hours Pg. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the time before storage of USDA to the invention of Fujimura. One would have been motivated to make this modification to prevent foodborne illness (USDA Pg. 1)
Regarding wherein "prevention of alginic acid from gelling" means prevention of the gelling to such a level that the non-gelling ratio measured by a method for determining non-gelling ratio during the time period from after completion of the pretreatment to before performing heating is 50% or higher or wherein the method for determining non-gelling ratio comprises washing a surface of a sample of a food precursor after the pretreatment with neutral running water to wash away the non- gelled portions of the composition from the surface, leaving the gelled portions attached to the surface, and measuring a total area of the composition remaining on the surface of the sample, from which a non-gelling ratio is calculated by formula:
non-gelling ratio (%) = {(surface area of sample - total area of gelled portions)/surface area of sample} x 100, as modified Fujimura teaches the same pretreatment composition and the same gelling prevention measures as the claimed invention, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect the two inventions to have similar non-gelling ratios.
Regarding Claim 2, Fujimura further teaches the gelling prevention measure further comprises storing the pretreated food precursor frozen until before the heating is performed (when stored at a freezing temperature Par. 12)
Regarding Claim 3, Fujimura further teaches the gelling prevention measure further comprises using a frozen food precursor as the food precursor to be pretreated (when applied to a frozen chilled product Par. 12)
Regarding Claim 4, Fujimura further teaches the gelling prevention measure further comprises controlling the product of the temperature of the pretreated food precursor and the time from after completion of the pretreatment to before performing the heating to less than 220 °C ∙h when the temperature of the pretreated food precursor is lower than 40°C (stored in refrigerator at 4°C for 24 hours before cooking Par. 30). This would have a product of 96°C∙h.
Regarding Claim 5, Fujimura further teaches the composition is in powder or liquid form when it is applied to the food precursor (liquid clothing material Par. 11)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura (JP 2019195292 A) in view of USDA (“Keep Food Safe! Food Safety Basics”) as evidenced by USGS (“pH Scale”).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Fujimura teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Fujimura further teaches the divalent metal salt has a water solubility of 0.1 g/100 g water or less in water at pH 7.0 and 20°C (solubility in water of 20°C of 0.1% by mass or less Par. 11
Fujimura does not teach the water has a pH of 7.0, but as evidenced by USGS, the pH of water is 7 (Pg. 1 Par. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Fujimura teaches gelling prior to heating. Fujimura teaches the gelling occurs when the liquid of the ingredients mixes with the batter but does not specify that this completely occurs prior to or during cooking (Par. 21-22). The examiner agrees that it is likely that some gelling occurs prior to heating, but also that it is possible that some gelling also occurs during heating. As it is claimed that the non-gelling ratio is 50% or higher, some gelling prior to heated still reads on the invention as claimed. Further, as stated in the above rejection of claim 1, modified Fujimura teaches the claimed pretreatment composition and gelling prevention technique, which would lead one to expect the same amount of gelling prevention to occur between the two inventions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ARIEL M RODGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-7857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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 5712703475. 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.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1792 /ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792