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 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 1-5 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.
The term “cooked rice-like” in claims 1, 4-5, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “cooked rice-like” 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. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what specific physical or chemical properties the grain food material needs to have in order to be considered “cooked rice-like”. For example, a cooked rice-like material can be produced to target different consumer preferences, texture (i.e., sticky, firm, mushy), or depending on the specific rice variety (i.e., Basmati, Jasmin) or application in which the cooked rice-like material is being used (i.e., different dishes such as sushi, rice cakes, soups, etc.).
The terms “cooked rice-like meal having an appearance, a texture, and a glutinous texture similar to an appearance, a texture, and a glutinous texture of cooked rice.” in claims 1, 4-5, are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “cooked rice-like meal having an appearance, a texture, and a glutinous texture similar to an appearance, a texture, and a glutinous texture of cooked rice.” 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. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what specific physical or chemical characteristics the grain food material needs to have in order to be considered “cooked rice-like meal having an appearance, a texture, and a glutinous texture similar to an appearance, a texture, and a glutinous texture of cooked rice.”. For example, a cooked rice-like material can be produced to target different rice types (i.e., long grain, short grain, medium grain, which all have different appearance and texture), consumer preferences, texture (i.e., sticky, firm, mushy), or depending on the specific rice variety (i.e., Basmati, Jasmin) or application in which the cooked rice-like material is being used (i.e., different dishes such as sushi, rice cakes, soups, etc.).
Claims 2-3 are rejected by virtue of their dependance on a base rejected claim.
Term(s) found in the Specification
“Containing substantially no grain source”: means that grains (oat, barley, wheat, brown rice, and the like) other than the processed grain food material of the present invention are not added in an amount that functions as a grain source (oat, barley, wheat, brown rice, and the like) of the cooked rice-like meal. However, this does not exclude the presence of grains other than the processed grain food material of the present invention for purposes such as flavoring and color adjustment. See [0034] of the instant specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox [US6238719B1], in view of Sakamoto [JP2021114906A].
Regarding claim 1, Fox teaches a processed grain material (i.e., barley) [Fox, col.5, l.37-38], for preparing a cooked meal [Fox, col.3, l.32-35], by adding water to the processed grain food material and cooking the processed grain food material by heating [Fox, col.4, l.51-53; col.5, l.12-14, l.53-59; col.6, l.7-8], the processed grain food material having the following features:
the processed grain food material being obtained by steaming, flaking, and cutting grain that has been shed (dehulled or the hull is removed, as disclosed on [0027] of the instant specification) and polished (equivalent tumbling over an abrasive surface providing a cleaner grain, since a dehulled grain that is tumbled over an abrasive surface would yield a polished grain) [Fox, col.5, l.3-11; col.3, l.43-45];
the processed grain food material having a thickness of 0.4 to 1.2 mm (cut to 1-2mm cubes) [Fox, col.8, l.2-4], and flaked to a thickness of 0.18-0.41mm (0.007-0.016 in) [Fox, col.8, l.10];
the processed grain food material having a moisture content of 20% or less [Fox, col.3, l.55-57];
the cooked rice-like meal containing substantially no grain source other than the processed grain food material (i.e., only barley, as disclosed on [0034] of the instant specification) [Fox, Title; col.3, l.30-35];
Fox is silent regarding:
the cooked rice-like meal having an appearance, a texture, and a glutinous texture similar to an appearance, a texture, and a glutinous texture of cooked rice.
Sakamoto teaches a processed grain material (i.e., barley) [Sakamoto, abstract, 0020], which can be cooked using water and heat to obtain a cooked rice-like meal [Sakamoto, 0013] having an appearance, texture, and a glutinous texture of cooked rice [Sakamoto, 0013, Example 7, 0063]. Further, the examiner notes that Fox teaches the same product obtained from the same individual raw materials and the same process as those disclosed by Sakamoto, there is reasonable basis to conclude that the product obtained by Fox’s process would have the same properties, including appearance and texture but Fox simply did not mention these properties. However, Sakamoto further teaches that barley (same raw material used in Fox’s process) may be enzymatically treated, subjected to the same steps and explicitly teaches that the product is a cooked rice-like meal having an appearance, a texture, and a glutinous texture similar to an appearance, a texture, and a glutinous texture of cooked rice [Sakamoto, abstract, 0013, 0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce cooked rice-like meal having an appearance, a texture, and a glutinous texture similar to an appearance, a texture, and a glutinous texture of cooked rice from a processed grain food material as taught by Sakamoto, into the invention of Fox, because Sakamoto teaches that polished barley (same material used by Fox) is suitable for making cooked rice-like meals that are suitable for persons with difficulty in chewing/swallowing, as well as the elderly, can be easily manufactured without the need for special equipment, and the invention provides a processed grain food material that retains its shape (appearance), maintains a moisture content of less than 15% [Sakamoto, 0012], where a consumer have the option to add a predetermined amount of water and heat to produce a cooked product that have the same delicious taste as regular cooked rice [Sakamoto, 0013], or adjust the moisture content to produce foods for various uses [Sakamoto, 0040].
Regarding claim 2, Fox teaches a method for producing the processed grain food material according to claim 1, the method comprising:
a steaming step of steaming grain [Fox, col.3, l.50-51; col.6, l.7] having been shed and polished [Fox, col.5, l.3-11; col.3, l.43-45];
a flaking step of flaking the grain [Fox, col.8, l.8-9] having been steamed in the steaming step [Fox, col.8, l.4-5], to a thickness of 0.4 to 1.2 mm (flaked to a thickness of 0.18-0.41mm (0.007-0.016 in)) [Fox, col.8, l.8-10]; and
a step of drying the grain [Fox, col.3, l.55-57; col.6, l.14] having been flaked in the flaking step [Fox, col.3, l.55-57; col.6, l.12-13; col.8, l.8-9] to obtain a processed grain food material having a moisture content of 20% or less [Fox, col.3, l.55-57; col.4, l.32-35], wherein in the steaming step, the grain having been shed and polished [Fox, col.3, l.43-45; col.5, l.3-11] is cut [Fox, col.3, l.48-49], and then steamed [Fox, col.3, l.50-51; col.6, l.7].
Regarding claims 4-5, see claim 1, elements a)-e) rejection above over Fox in view of Sakamoto.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox [US6238719B1], in view of Sakamoto [JP2021114906A] as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Lewis et al. [GB2069813A], hereinafter Lewis.
Regarding claim 3, Fox teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the grain is cut [Fox, col.3, l.48-49; col.6, l.4-6], but does not explicitly teach that the grain is cut into 2 to 15 pieces.
Lewis teaches a processed grain material (i.e., barley), wherein the grain is cut into 3 to 7 pieces [Lewis, abstract, l.129-130], or into 2 to 8 pieces [Lewis, l.87-92, l.126-128].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cutting of the grain into 3 to 7 pieces as taught by Lewis into the method of Fox, because Lewis teaches that by cutting the grains into those amount of pieces would allow to soften and compress the grains into flakes and further processed for use in food applications (i.e., meat filler), for mixing with other edible materials [Lewis, abstract], and provide methods for manufacturing foods from an edible grain/seed [Lewis, l.117-119].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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.
/LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights