DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The status of the claims stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-20
Withdrawn claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 1-20
Currently rejected claims: 1-20
Allowed claims: None
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 14-15, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “the food product” should be read as “the formed food product”; and “a food product” should be read as “a formed food product”.
In claims 3, 5, and 9, “the obtained food product” should be read as “the obtained formed food product”.
In claims 14 and 15, “the food product” should be read as “the formed food product”.
In claim 18, “the obtained food product” should be read as “the obtained formed food product”; and “the food product” should be read as “the formed food product”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 1 recites that the food product produced by the claimed method contains “an additional ingredient for taste/nutrition purposes only and not for structural purposes”. However, some ingredients (e.g., chocolate, yoghurt, honey as recited in dependent claim 16) have structural purposes (e.g., binding agents) as well as taste and/or nutrition purposes whether or not a skilled artisan uses the ingredients for such purposes. As such, this limitation does not distinguish between which additional ingredient(s) is/are encompassed by the claim and which additional ingredient(s) is/are excluded by the claim; therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claims 2-20 are rejected by reason of dependency from claim 1.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2006/0257531; IDS citation) in view of Seward (“Food Preservation 101: Drying”, Seward Community Co-op, 2016, https://seward.coop/food-preservation-101-drying/; IDS citation).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a method for preparing a formed food product (corresponding to fruit bar) that is readily consumable by an end user [0006], wherein the food product consists of a mixture of cut pieces of a first type of fresh food (corresponding to semi-dried discrete fruit pieces in diced or chunked form that serve as the primary and secondary fruits) [0021]-[0022], [0024]; a paste of a second type of fresh food not previously dried (corresponding to fruit puree) [0027]; and an additional ingredient for taste and/or nutritional purposes (corresponding to sweetening composition, edible oil, and fruit flavoring) [0029], [0031]-[0032]. Yang teaches that the method comprises: obtaining a first amount of cut and semi-dried pieces of the first type of fresh food having a moisture content of 12-15 wt.% and 14-18 wt.% [0021]-[0022], [0024], which falls within the claimed moisture content range of the dehydrated pieces; mixing a mixture consisting of the cut dehydrated pieces of the first amount of the first type of fresh food; a second amount of a second type of fresh food not previously dried; and the additional ingredient; and heating the mixed mixture at a temperature of about 74°C (corresponding to maintain the temperature of about 165°F), which falls within the claimed second temperature range, for a second amount of time (corresponding to 1-3 minutes) [0035]-[0038]. Yang teaches that the moisture content of the final formed food product is 12-17 wt.% [0039], which falls within the claimed moisture content.
Since the moisture content of the cut dehydrated pieces of the first amount of the first type of fresh food is 12-15 wt.% and 14-18 wt.% [0022], [0024] and the moisture content of the final formed food product is 12-17 wt.% [0039], Yang renders obvious the limitation that heating the mixed mixture allows for the moisture content of the mixture to increase with respect to the cut dehydrated pieces of the first type of fresh food. Since Yang discloses that the first amount of cut pieces of the first type of fresh food are discrete fruit pieces in diced or chunked form [0021], Yang teaches that the first amount of cut pieces of the first type of fresh food is not a puree as claimed. Since Yang discloses that the formed food product is a food bar [0006], Yang teaches that the formed food product is not a food film as claimed. Since Yang discloses that the fresh food of the first and second types of fresh food are semi-dried fruits and fruit puree [0022], [0027], Yang teaches that the fresh food consists of fresh fruits in their natural state that do not contain any ingredients that are not naturally part of the respective fruit as claimed. Yang discloses that the total amount of the first and second types of fresh foods is at least 50 wt.% (page 3, Table 1), which overlaps the claimed concentration. The selection of a value within the overlapping range renders the claim obvious. MPEP §2144.05.I. Yang discloses that the first type of fresh food is semi-dried discrete fruit pieces in diced or chunked form having moisture contents of 12-15 wt.% and 14-18 wt.% [0021]-[0022], [0024].
Yang does not teach the method comprising the steps of: obtaining a first amount of cut pieces of the first type of fresh food; and dehydrating the obtained first amount of cut pieces as recited by the claim.
However, Seward teaches that dried fruit should have a moisture content no higher than 25 wt.% (page 1, paragraph 1). Seward teaches that dried fruits are formed by obtaining a first amount of cut pieces of the first type of fresh food (corresponding to slicing the fruit); and dehydrating the obtained cut pieces at a temperature of about 77°C (corresponding to 170°F) for about 4-8 hours (page 2, paragraph 2). The temperature falls within the claimed first temperature range and the time of about 4-8 hours qualifies as the claimed first amount of time.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Yang by obtaining a first amount of cut pieces of the first type of fresh food and dehydrating the obtained cut pieces as taught by Seward. Since Yang teaches that the first type of fresh food is semi-dried discrete fruit pieces in diced or chunked form having moisture contents of 12-15 wt.% and 14-18 wt.% [0021]-[0022], [0024], but did not disclose a method for producing such pieces, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Seward in order to determine a suitable method of obtaining and dehydrating a first amount of cut pieces of the first type of fresh food. Therefore, the claim is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Yang teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the first and second types of fresh food are selected from the group consisting of pineapple, blueberry, strawberry, apple, pear, apricots, and cherry [0021].
Regarding claim 3, Yang teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the moisture content of the final formed food product is 12-17 wt.% [0039], which falls within the claimed concentration.
Regarding claim 4, Yang teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the moisture content of the cut dehydrated pieces of the first amount of the first type of fresh food may be 12-15 wt.% and 14-18 wt.% [0022], [0024], which fall within the claimed concentration.
Regarding claim 5, Yang teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the obtained food product comprises 45-90 wt.% of the first amount of the cut pieces of the first type of fresh food (corresponding to 30-60 parts by weight primary fruit [0023] and 15-30 parts by weight secondary fruit [0025]) and 2-8 wt.% of the second amount of the second type of fresh food (corresponding to 2-8 parts by weight fruit puree) [0027], which overlap the claimed concentrations. The selection of values within the overlapping ranges renders the claim obvious. MPEP §2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 6, Yang teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the first amount of time is about 4-8 hours (Seward, page 2, paragraph 2), which overlaps the claimed time frame. The selection of a value within the overlapping range renders the claim obvious. MPEP §2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 7, Yang teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the first amount of time is about 4-8 hours (Seward, page 2, paragraph 2), which falls within the claimed time frame.
Regarding claim 8, Yang teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the second amount of time is 1-3 minutes [0035]-[0038], which falls within the claimed time frame.
Regarding claim 9, Yang teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the formed food product consists of a mixture of cut pieces of a first type of fresh food (corresponding to semi-dried discrete fruit pieces in diced or chunked form that serve as the primary and secondary fruits) [0021]-[0022], [0024]; a paste of a second type of fresh food not previously dried (corresponding to fruit puree) [0027]; and an additional ingredient for taste and/or nutritional purposes (corresponding to sweetening composition, edible oil, and fruit flavoring) [0029], [0031]-[0032]. Therefore, Yang discloses that the obtained formed food product does not comprise an anti-browning agent.
Regarding claim 10, Yang teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the formed food product consists of a mixture of cut pieces of a first type of fresh food (corresponding to semi-dried discrete fruit pieces in diced or chunked form that serve as the primary and secondary fruits) [0021]-[0022], [0024]; a paste of a second type of fresh food not previously dried (corresponding to fruit puree) [0027]; and an additional ingredient for taste and/or nutritional purposes (corresponding to sweetening composition, edible oil, and fruit flavoring) [0029], [0031]-[0032]. Since Yang discloses that the fresh food of the first and second types of fresh food are semi-dried fruits and fruit puree [0022], [0027] and that the additional ingredient is a sweetening composition, edible oil, and fruit flavoring [0029], [0031]-[0032], Yang teaches that the ingredients do not include an anti-browning agent.
Regarding claim 11, Yang teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the first and second types of fresh food are the same type of fresh food (corresponding to strawberry pieces and strawberry puree) [0021], [0027].
Regarding claim 12, Yang teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the first and second types of fresh food are different types of fresh food (corresponding to apple pieces and strawberry puree) [0021], [0027].
Regarding claim 13, Yang teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the second amount of the second type of fresh food not previously dried is not dehydrated (corresponding the second amount of the second type of fresh food being fruit puree) [0027].
Regarding claim 14, Yang teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the obtained food product comprises 45-90 wt.% of the first amount of the cut pieces of the first type of fresh food (corresponding to 30-60 parts by weight primary fruit [0023] and 15-30 parts by weight secondary fruit [0025]) and 2-8 wt.% of the second amount of the second type of fresh food (corresponding to 2-8 parts by weight fruit puree) [0027], which overlap the claimed concentrations. The selection of values within the overlapping ranges renders the claim obvious. MPEP §2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 15, Yang teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the obtained food product comprises 45-90 wt.% of the first amount of the cut pieces of the first type of fresh food (corresponding to 30-60 parts by weight primary fruit [0023] and 15-30 parts by weight secondary fruit [0025]) and 2-8 wt.% of the second amount of the second type of fresh food (corresponding to 2-8 parts by weight fruit puree) [0027], which overlap the claimed concentrations. The selection of values within the overlapping ranges renders the claim obvious. MPEP §2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 16, Yang teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the additional ingredient is chocolate or yogurt [0034].
Regarding claim 17, Yang teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the cut pieces of the first type of fresh food are diced [0021] or sliced-shaped (Seward, page 2, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 18, Yang teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the obtained food product consists of: a mixture consisting of the cut dehydrated pieces of the first amount of the first type of fresh food; a second amount of a second type of fresh food not previously dried; and the additional ingredient [0035]-[0038]. Since Yang discloses that the second amount of the second type of fresh food not previously dried is a fruit puree [0027], Yang teaches that the second amount of the second type of fresh food is not a juice of the second type of fresh food as claimed. Since Yang discloses that the first amount of the first type of fresh food is semi-dried [0022] such as semi-dried strawberries [0021], and that the second amount of the second type of fresh food is a fruit puree such as strawberry puree [0026], Yang teaches that the first amount of the first type of fresh food is dehydrated and has a lower moisture content than the second amount of the second type of fresh food as claimed. Yang discloses that fruits retain their own tase and roughness [0015], which at least renders the food product keeping the organoleptic properties of the fresh food obvious.
Regarding claim 19, Yang teaches the invention as described above in claim 18, including the first and second types of fresh food are the same type of fresh food (corresponding to strawberry pieces and strawberry puree) [0021], [0027].
Regarding claim 20, Yang teaches the invention as described above in claim 18, including the first and second types of fresh food are different types of fresh food (corresponding to apple pieces and strawberry puree) [0021], [0027].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly Kershaw whose telephone number is (571)272-2847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 4:00 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, Nikki 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.
/KELLY P KERSHAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights