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 .
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
When there are drawings, there shall be a “brief description of the several views of the drawings” (See 37 C.F.R. 1.74.).
The section heading “brief description of the several views of the drawings” as set forth in 37 C.F.R. 1.74 is missing. Please correct.
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 2-20 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the step" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider using the language “step(s)” in Claim 1.
The term “hot” in claim 2, line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hot” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A person having ordinary skill in the art could interpret a water as hot while another could interpret the same water as not hot.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the step" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider using the language “step(s)” in Claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the step" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider using the language “step(s)” in Claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the step" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider using the language “step(s)” in Claim 1.
The term “hot” in claim 5, line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hot” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A person having ordinary skill in the art could interpret a water as hot while another could interpret the same water as not hot.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the step" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider using the language “step(s)” in Claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the step" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider using the language “step(s)” in Claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the sealed bag" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating “sealed bag”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the grain is rice" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims previously state “grains”. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the grains are rice".
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the grain is oats" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims previously state “grains”. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the grains are oats".
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the steps" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider using the language “step(s)” in Claim 1.
The terms “loose and fluffy” in claim 14, line 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “loose and fluffy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A person having ordinary skill in the art could interpret a grain as “loose and fluffy” while another could interpret the same grain as not “loose and fluffy”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the step" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider using the language “step(s)” in Claim 1.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the step" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider using the language “step(s)” in Claim 1.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the step" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider using the language “step(s)” in Claim 1.
The term “hot” in claim 18, line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hot” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A person having ordinary skill in the art could interpret a water as hot while another could interpret the same water as not hot.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the step" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider using the language “step(s)” in Claim 1.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the step" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider using the language “step(s)” in Claim 1.
Clarification and/or correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Howard (US 2017/0367381).
Regarding claim 1, Howard (‘381) teaches a process for cooking grains (See Abs., claims 1-8, 12-31 and paras. 8-18, 22-26, 30-41.) comprising: providing a bag having an air and moisture barrier (See claim 18.); placing uncooked grains in the bag; placing brine in the bag (See claim 18.); providing a head space filled with air in the bag to provide space for the grains to expand during cooking (See claim 18.); sealing the bag (See claim 18.); and, cooking the grains in the bag (See claim 18.).
Regarding claim 8, Howard (‘381) teaches wherein the step of cooking the grains in the bag comprises placing the bag in a continuous cooking system having multiple cooking zones (See claims 1, 6 and 18.).
Regarding claim 10, Howard (‘381) teaches wherein the grains are completely cooked in the bag and then refrigerated in the sealed bag (See claims 18, 24 and 25.).
Regarding claim 11, Howard (‘381) teaches wherein the grain is rice (See claim 18.).
Regarding claim 14, Howard (‘381) teaches a process for cooking grains in a bag to provide a loose and fluffy cooked grain product comprising: providing a packaging machine; providing a bag having an air and moisture barrier; filling a portion of the bag with a grain using the packaging machine; filling a portion of the bag with brine using the packaging machine; leaving a portion of the bag with only air; and, sealing the bag using the packaging machine (See claims 1-8, 12-31.).
Regarding claim 15, Howard (‘381) teaches providing a cooking device; and, cooking the grain in the bag in the cooking device (See claim 18.).
Regarding claim 17, Howard (‘381) teaches wherein the step of providing a cooking device includes providing a continuous cooking device with multiple cooking zones (See claim 18.).
Regarding claim 19, Howard (‘381) teaches wherein the step of filling a portion of the bag with a grain using the packaging machine includes filling the bag with rice (See claim 18.).
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.
Claim(s) 2-7, 9, 12, 16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (US 2017/0367381).
Regarding claims 2-7, 9, 16 and 18, Howard (‘381) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly teach the various steps of cooking a handling of the grain material.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for providing the various steps and handling.
It is noted as discussed above that Howard (‘381) teaches the same basic method as claimed to provide the same cooked product.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to use various steps known in the art, including those claimed, to provide a packaged cooked, grain. The selection of method steps would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Howard (‘381) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly teach the grain being oats.
However, Howard (‘381) teaches the grains being other water-absorbing grains (See para. 8.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date that oats, like those found in oatmeal are a water-absorbing grain. The selection of a water-absorbing grain like oats would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
/BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793 February 16, 2026