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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 6-19 are pending in the current application.
Claims 12-19 are withdrawn from considerations (see discussion, below).
Claims 6-11 are examined in the current application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 6-11 in the reply filed on February 4th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 4th, 2026.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 6-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al., (USPatPub. 2014/0170291 A1).
Regarding claims 6, 9 and 10: Chung discloses a laver-snack comprising two laver sheets that are attached to both sides of one cereal sheet using an aqueous sugar solution (see Chung abstract; paragraphs [0035], [0036] and [0038]). Chung further discloses the laver-snack is processed through a press machine comprising rollers that may provide desired shape to the laver-snack, such as curves (see Chung paragraph [0052]) followed by baking to provide a crunchy, or chewy product (see Chung paragraphs [0030], [0032] and [0053]-[0055]). Chung also discloses the cereal sheet layer comprises rice powder and/or starch and raw materials, such as, shrimps, sesame seeds, black sesame seeds, laver powder, anchovies and/or squids (see Chung paragraph [0032]), but fails to disclose textural aspects, such as, peak force, of peak time; However, Chung disclose of adjusting the types and contents of constituents to attain desired texture (i.e., crunchy, or chewy) (see Chung paragraphs [0032] and [0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to adjust the types and contents of constituents to attain desired texture, and thus arrive at the claimed textural aspects (i.e., peak force and peak time). As set forth in MPEP §2144.05 discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable, involves only routine skill in the art.
As to the thickness of the thickness of the laver-snack recited in claim 6: Chung fails to disclose the thickness of the laver-snack; However, Chung discloses the cereal sheet layer comprises rice powder and/or starch and raw materials, such as, shrimps, sesame seeds, black sesame seeds, laver powder, anchovies and/or squids (see Chung paragraph [0032]), and of adjusting the types and contents of constituents to attain desired texture (i.e., crunchy, or chewy) (see Chung paragraphs [0032] and [0038]). Given the fact the amount of constituents clearly impact the thickness of the laver-snack, the thickness of the desired laver-snack in Chung overlaps the claim thickness, and thus prima facie case of obviousness exists. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 7 and 8: Chung fails to discloses the brix index values (i.e., sugar solution concentration) and amount of the sugar solution to be applied; However, Chung discloses the laver sheets are attached to the cereal sheet using a sugar solution where the concentration of the sugar solution and amount applied is adjusted to the level desired (see Chung paragraphs [0036] and [0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the application was filed to have modified the brix index values (i.e., the concentration of the sugar solution) and amount of sugar solution applied, in order to attain a desired product, and thus arrive at the claimed limitations. As set forth in MPEP §2144.05 discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable, involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11: Chung fails to disclose the amount/concentration of curves (i.e., ridges); However, Chung discloses the laver-snack is processed through a press machine comprising rollers that may provide desired shape to the laver-snack, such as curves (see Chung paragraph [0052]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan who desires to attain a laver-snack with 1-10 ridges (i.e., curves) per 10mm, to adjust the shape of the rollers to attain such laver-snack shape, and thus arrive at the claimed limitations. As set forth in MPEP §2144.05 discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable, involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSAF ZILBERING whose telephone number is (571)270-3029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached on (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.
/ASSAF ZILBERING/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights