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 Objections
Claims 1, 8, 10-12 and 14-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in step (a) delete “any” before “combination thereof” and insert “a” to place the claim in better form.
In step (c), insert “mixture” after “weight of the dough” for consistency.
In step (d), insert “mm” after “about 1” for consistency.
In step (e), delete “each sheet to produce an intermediate cooked sheet that has” after “microwave cooking” and insert “the plurality of individual sheets to produce a plurality of intermediate cooked sheets that have”.
In step (e), delete the final recitation of “sheet” and insert “sheets”.
In step (f), delete “sheet” after “intermediate cooked” and insert “sheets”.
In step (f), delete “cooked snack food sheet that has” after “to produce a” and insert “plurality of cooked snack food sheets that have”.
In step (f), delete the final recitation of “sheet” and insert “sheets”.
In step (g), delete “sheet” after “cooked snack food” and insert “sheets”.
In step (g), delete “resultant cooked product” after “moisture content of the” and insert “cooked snack food sheets”.
In step (g), delete “sheet” after “dehydrated cooked snack food” and insert “sheets”.
In the third to last line of the claim, delete “sheet comprises” after “dehydrated cooked snack food” and insert “sheets comprise”.
In the second to last line of the claim, delete “a plurality of individual pieces of vegetable and/or fruit” and insert “the pieces of the at least one vegetable and/or fruit ingredient are” for consistency with the language of steps (b) and (c).
Regarding claim 8, delete “at” after “is carried out”.
Regarding claim 10, delete “sheet” after “cooked snack food” and insert “sheets”.
In line 2, insert “of the at least one vegetable and/or fruit ingredient” after “the pieces”.
Regarding claim 11, delete “vegetable and/or fruit pieces” and insert “pieces of at least one vegetable and/or fruit ingredient”.
In line 4, delete “being based up” and insert “based upon”.
Regarding claim 12, delete “comprise vegetable pieces and” and insert “of at least one vegetable and/or fruit ingredient”.
Regarding claim 14, delete “sheet has” and insert “sheets have”.
Regarding claim 15, in line 2 delete “sheet has” and insert “sheets have”.
In line 4, delete “sheet” and insert “sheets”.
Regarding claim 16, in both lines 2 and 3 delete “sheet” and insert “sheets”.
Regarding claim 17, delete “sheet is” and insert “sheets are”.
In line 2, delete “has” after “food chip and” and insert “have”
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.
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 1-18 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim as a whole is rendered indefinite since the preamble recites a “method of manufacturing a vegetable- and/or fruit-containing snack food”, but the body does not clearly indicate where said “snack food” is obtained. The final step (g) recites “dehydrating the cooked snack food sheet” to obtain a “dehydrated cooked snack food sheet”. It is unclear if said dehydrated sheet is the “snack food” recited in the preamble, or if further unrecited steps are required to obtain said “snack food”. The rejection may be overcome by amending the claim language to clearly indicate where the “vegetable- and/or fruit-containing snack food” is actually obtained.
Regarding claim 11, in lines 4-5 the limitation “vegetable(s) and/or fruit(s)” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the terms are directed to the singular form, the plural form, or both. It is noted that the rejection can be overcome by amending the limitation “vegetable(s) and/or fruit(s)” to instead recite “one or more vegetables and/or fruits” such that the language is consistent with line 2 of the claim.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “optionally from 1 to 3 mm, further optionally from 1 to 2 mm” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear how the limitation should be interpreted. While the ranges of 1-3 mm and 1-2 mm are recited to be “optional”, the thickness is nonetheless required to be between 1-5 mm. The required range encompasses the “optional” ranges, which indicates embodiments in which the required thickness can be any value between 1-3 mm and 1-2 mm, respectively. In such embodiments, it is unclear if the ranges of 1-3 mm and 1-2 mm are actually “optional”.
Likewise, it is unclear if the claim recites a broad range (1-5 mm) followed by a narrow range (1-3 mm and 1-2 mm). If this is the case, then the claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Regarding claim 18, the term “vegetable(s)” renders the claim indefinite for the same reason stated for claim 11.
The limitation “35-65 wt% vegetable(s) mashed, chopped and/or shredded” renders the claim indefinite since the antecedent basis is ambiguous. While the claim recites “the dough mixture formed in step (c) comprises the flowing ingredients…”, it is unclear if the claimed percentage range is directed to only the “plurality of pieces of at least one non-potato vegetable and/or fruit ingredient” recited in claim 1 step (b), or if the claimed range includes unrecited vegetable ingredients.
The limitation “20-50 wt% potato mash” renders the claim indefinite since the antecedent basis is ambiguous. Claim 1 step (a) recites “providing a mash comprising mashed potato”. It is unclear if the percentage of “potato mash” recited in claim 18 refers to the “mashed potato” only, or to the “mash comprising mashed potato”, which can include unrecited elements.
The limitation “dehydrated/dry ingredients” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the two are alternatives, and what feature(s) are encompassed by each term. The terms “dehydrated” and “dry ingredients” are not defined by the specification. It is therefore unclear if “dehydrated” encompasses the same, overlapping, or different subject matter as “dry ingredients”. The boundary between the terms is ambiguous. It is also unclear if the “/” should be interpreted as “and”, “or”, or “and/or”. Further, it is unclear if overlapping subject matter exists between “dehydrated/dry ingredients” and “herbs and spices”.
The limitation “dry ingredients” also renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what substance(s) are encompassed by the term “dry”. The specification provides examples of such ingredients (e.g., paragraph 65), but does not define any feature(s) necessary for interpretation of the term “dry”. Without such guidance, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been able to determine the boundary of moisture content that is considered to be “dry”.
Claims 2-10 and 12-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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, 5-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunke et al. (US 2009/0202700 A1) in view of Shah et al. (US 11,291,226 B1) and Gocha et al. (US 2012/0114824 A1).
Regarding claim 1, it is noted the term “cooking” is not particularly defined by the specification. The term is interpreted in view of the specification to encompass processes which reduce the moisture content of the treated material, with or without gelatinization of the starch. Bunke et al. teaches a method of making snack foods containing fruit or vegetable materials (abstract), comprising:
(a) providing a dough (mash) comprising mashed potato (paragraph 140);
(b) providing a plurality of pieces of at least one non-potato vegetable and/or fruit ingredient that is raw or has been at least partly cooked (paragraphs 33-36, 136 and 140);
(c) mixing together the mash and the pieces of the at least one vegetable and/or fruit ingredient with water to form a dough mixture (paragraphs 136-138 and 145) having a moisture content of e.g., 20-45% (paragraph 158);
(d) forming the dough mixture into a sheet having a thickness of from about 0.38-2.54mm and cutting or stamping the sheet to form snack pieces, construed to be “individual sheets” (paragraphs 147-148);
(e) cooking each sheet (stage 1) to produce an intermediate cooked sheet that has reduced moisture content (paragraphs 158 and 160), where the cooking can be performed by microwaving (paragraph 162);
(f) further cooking each intermediate cooked sheet (stage 2) to further reduce the moisture content and produce a cooked snack food sheet (paragraph 163), where the step can be performed in a hot air convection oven (paragraph 290) as is known in the art (paragraph 166); and
(g) dehydrating the cooked snack food sheet to reduce the moisture content of the resultant cooked product to about 1-3 wt% (paragraph 167).
It is noted “dehydrating” step (g) does not indicate the process is performed in a device separate from the hot air convection oven of step (f). Therefore, the limitation is interpreted to encompass a process where the cooked snack food sheet in the oven is continuously dried to the dehydrated cooked snack food sheet moisture content of 0.5-5 wt%. Bunke et al. teaches convection oven cooking the sheets from an intermediate moisture content to the final moisture content. The process is considered to be “cooking” while the sheets are dried from the intermediate moisture to the “cooked” moisture e.g., 5 wt%, and considered to be “dehydrating” from said “cooked” moisture to the final moisture.
Regarding “the dehydrated cooked snack food sheet comprises a rigid starch matrix and a plurality of individual pieces of vegetable and/or fruit randomly distributed throughout the matrix”, the dehydrated product of Bunke et al. is construed to teach the claimed feature. The dough is formed by mixing a dry blend containing starch and vegetable and/or fruit pieces with water as stated above, which one of ordinary skill would expect to provide said pieces “randomly distributed” throughout. The dough is sheeted and dehydrated as stated above, where the product obtains a “crispy and crunchy texture” (paragraph 56), which one of ordinary skill in the art would consider to comprise a “rigid starch matrix.”
Bunke et al. does not explicitly teach the mashed potato “has been at least partly cooked…produced using fresh potato, dehydrated potato or any combination thereof”
However, the reference teaches the starch (including starch sourced from potato) used to form the dough can be at least partly cooked for gelatinization (paragraphs 31, 46, 98, 109 and 111), wherein the mashed potato would have necessarily been produced using a potato that was originally fresh.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Bunke et al. to use mashed potato that has been at least partially cooked and produced using fresh potato since the reference suggests pre-cooking starch materials prior to forming the dough, since mashed potato is well-known in the art to be made from at least partially cooked potatoes that are either fresh or dehydrated, since the evidence of record does not indicate criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and to provide an ingredient having desired characteristics of taste, texture/mouthfeel, aroma, and nutritional profile.
Regarding the thickness of the individual sheets being about 1-8 mm, Bunke et al. teaches a range that overlaps the claimed range. The reference also teaches thickness can be varied based on the composition of the dough and processing characteristics (paragraphs 150, 154 and 156).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Bunke et al. to use the claimed thickness values since the evidence of record does not indicate criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed range, and since the values would have been used during routine experimentation and optimization due to factors such as desired texture/mouthfeel of the final product, rate of drying, and dough composition.
Bunke et al. does not teach at least about 50% by number of the non-potato vegetable and/or fruit ingredient pieces have a dimension of about 0.75mm to 7mm.
However, the reference teaches the pieces can be ground to a specific particle size distribution (paragraph 103) such that at least 75% of the particles pass through a mesh screen of desired size (paragraph 104). The reference also recognizes that particle size distribution affects texture (paragraph 119).
Shah et al. teaches a crispy snack product comprising a pre-gelled starch with a plurality of inclusions (abstract), where the inclusions are sized to be visually-identifiable while minimizing the risk of burning during processing (column 3 lines 10-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Bunke et al. such that at least 50% by number of the vegetable and/or fruit pieces have a dimension of about 0.75-7mm since the reference suggests uniform particle size distribution for the inclusions and is also concerned with burning the inclusions (paragraph 10), since the prior art recognizes snack inclusions are sized to be “visually identifiable” while minimizing risk of burning, since the evidence of record does not indicate the claimed values are critical for unexpected results, and since the values would have been used during routine experimentation and optimization due to factors such as desired flavor, texture/mouthfeel, visual identifiability/appeal, and nutritional profile.
Bunke et al. does not teach the dough mixture of step (c) has a moisture content of from about 60 to about 80 wt% based on the weight of the dough.
Gocha et al. teaches a method for producing a snack chip (abstract) comprising forming a dough having a moisture content of e.g., 25-80 wt% (paragraph 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Bunke et al. such that the dough mixture has a moisture content of about 60-80 wt% since the reference teaches a desired “cohesive dough” can be obtained by adding more water (paragraph 126) and adjusting moisture content of the dough by adding varying amounts of water (paragraphs 137 and 158), since the prior art recognizes an overlapping range of moisture content for doughs to be dried into snack chips, since water content of a material is recognized to affect processing and characteristics of the final product, since the evidence of record does not indicate criticality and unexpected results associated with the range, and since the values would have been used during routine experimentation and optimization due to factors such as desired rheology of the dough (e.g., for mixing, pumping, handling, sheeting, and/or other processing characteristics), and characteristics of the final product.
Bunke et al. does not teach the intermediate cooked sheet of step (e) has a moisture content of 25-45 wt%.
However, the reference teaches the dough sheet is dried in stage 1 to “remove about 50% or more of the initial moisture” (paragraph 164). The combination with Gocha et al. renders obvious the claimed dough moisture content range. Reducing the dough moisture content range by “50% or more” would obtain an intermediate cooked sheet moisture content that overlaps the claimed range i.e., 30-40 wt%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Bunke et al. such that the intermediate cooked sheet has a moisture content of 25-45 wt% since the reference teaches a two-stage cooking process where the first stage reduces dough moisture content by 50% or more, since the evidence of record does not indicate criticality and unexpected results associated with the range, and since the values would have been used during routine experimentation and optimization due to factors such as desired texture/mouthfeel of the final product and degradation of the “authentic flavor and nutritional value” of the inclusions as taught by Bunke et al. (paragraph 165).
Bunk et al. does not teach the cooked snack food sheet of step (f) has a moisture content of from greater than about 5 to up to about 12 wt% based on the weight of the cooked snack food sheet.
However, the reference reads on the “cooking” and “dehydrating” steps (f) and (g) as explained above, and the intermediate cooked sheet moisture of 25-45 wt% would have been obvious as stated above. Therefore, the moisture content of the sheet would have passed through the claimed range of 5-12 wt% during the respective steps.
Regardless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Bunke et al. such that the cooked snack food sheet has a moisture content of 5-12 wt% for the same reasons stated for the intermediate cooked sheet above, particularly desired flavor and texture/mouthfeel.
Regarding claim 5, Bunke et al. teaches the vegetable and/or fruit pieces are raw (paragraphs 35-36) and comminuted to form the pieces (paragraphs 102-103).
Regarding claim 6, Bunke et al. does not teach the claimed power density and duration for microwave cooking.
However, the reference teaches microwave cooking to remove moisture at a desired rate to obtain desired characteristics as stated for claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Bunke et al. to use the claimed power density since since the evidence of record does not indicate criticality and unexpected results associated with the range, and since the values would have been used during routine experimentation and optimization due to factors such as desired texture/mouthfeel of the final product, and to prevent burning of the vegetable and/or fruit pieces as taught by Bunke et al.
Regarding claim 7, Bunke et al. teaches stage 2 conditions can be varied to remove moisture from the product to achieve a desired final moisture without negativs such as burning, texture issues, or degradation of flavors or nutrients, where the drying rate can be adjusted to optimize final product properties (paragraph 163). Stage to can be performed at an oven temperature of about 300-400oF or about 149-204oC for 1-2 minutes (paragraph 169).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Bunke et al. such that the cooking is carried out at the claimed temperature and time ranges since the reference suggests optimization of such parameters, since the evidence of record does not indicate criticality and unexpected results associated with the range, and since the values would have been used during routine experimentation and optimization due to factors such as desired characteristics of the final product.
Regarding claim 8, Bunk et al. does not teach the claimed dehydration temperature and duration.
However, the reference teaches adjusting stage 2 conditions as stated for claim 1 above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Bunke et al. to dehydrate at the claimed temperature and duration since the evidence of record does not indicate criticality and unexpected results associated with the range, and since the values would have been used during routine experimentation and optimization due to factors such as desired characteristics of the final product such as flavor, texture/mouthfeel, and nutritional profile.
Regarding claim 9, Bunk et al. does not specify the starch matrix comprises at least about 25 wt% potato starch.
However, the reference teaches starch used for the dough can be sourced from potato (paragraphs 42-43 and 45-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Bunke et al. to comprise the claimed amount of potato starch since the reference indicates potato can be used as the starch source, since the evidence of record does not indicate criticality and unexpected results associated with the range, and since the values would have been used during routine experimentation and optimization due to factors such as desired characteristics of the final product such as flavor, texture/mouthfeel, and nutritional profile.
Regarding claim 10, Bunk et al. does not teach the dehydrated cooked snack food sheet comprises at least about 90% by number of the pieces having a minimum dimension of at least about 1 mm.
However, the combination applied to claim 1 renders obvious at least about 50% by number of the non-potato vegetable and/or fruit ingredient pieces having a dimension of about 0.75mm to 7mm as stated above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Bunke et al. such that the dehydrated cooked snack food sheet comprises at least about 90% by number of the pieces having a minimum dimension of at least about 1 mm for the same reasons stated for claim 1.
Regarding claims 11-12, Bunke et al. teaches the vegetable includes e.g., onion (paragraph 34), which is disclosed in Applicant’s specification to a suitable food (paragraph 19). Therefore, Bunk et al. is construed to teach the claimed features.
Regarding claim 13, Bunk et al. teaches the pieces comprise fruit pieces (paragraphs 33 and 139).
Regarding claims 14-15, Bunke et al. does not teach the claimed weight ratio of rigid starch matrix to pieces of vegetable and/or fruit (claim 14) and the vegetable and/or fruit solids content of the pieces in the dehydrated cooked snack food sheet (claim 15).
However, the reference teaches varying amounts of vegetable and/or fruit in the product composition (paragraphs 68-91 and 103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Bunke et al. to have the claimed weight ratio and vegetable and/or fruit solids content of components since the reference suggests varying the respective amounts as desired, since the evidence of record does not indicate criticality and unexpected results associated with the range, and since the values would have been used during routine experimentation and optimization due to factors such as desired characteristics of the final product such as flavor, texture/mouthfeel, and nutritional profile.
Regarding claims 16-17, Bunke et al. teaches a final moisture content of 1-3 wt% and a thickness of 0.38-2.54 mm as stated for claim 1 above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Bunke et al. to have the claimed final moisture content and thickness for the same reasons stated for claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Bunk et al. does not teach the dough mixture comprises the claimed composition.
However, the reference teaches the dough comprises comminuted vegetables and mashed potato as stated for claim 1. The reference further teaches the dry blend used to form the dough can include varying amounts of other dry ingredients such as herbs and spices (paragraph 136).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Bunke et al. to have the claimed composition since the reference already teaches using the claimed components to form the dough, since the evidence of record does not indicate criticality and unexpected results associated with the range, and since the values would have been used during routine experimentation and optimization due to factors such as desired characteristics of the final product such as flavor, texture/mouthfeel, and nutritional profile.
Applicant has not shown sufficient evidence that the claimed ingredients and amounts produce new, unexpected, and useful function, see In re Levin, 84 U.S.P.Q. 232, 234 (C.C.P.A. 1950). Id. at 7. The following passage is quoted from Levin.
“This court has taken the position that new recipes or formulas for cooking food which involve the addition or elimination of common ingredients, or for treating them in ways which differ from the former practice, do not amount to invention merely because it is not disclosed that, in the constantly developing art of preparing food, no one else ever did the particular thing upon which the applicant asserts his right to a patent. In all such cases, there is nothing patentable unless the applicant by a proper showing further establishes a coaction or cooperative relationship between the selected ingredients which produces a new, unexpected, and useful function. In re White, 39 F.2d 974, 17 C.C.P.A., Patents, 956; In re Mason et al., 156 F.2d 189, 33 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1144.”
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunke et al. (US 2009/0202700 A1) in view of Shah et al. (US 11,291,226 B1) and Gocha et al. (US 2012/0114824 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tiffany et al. (US 2009/0136647 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Bunke et al. does not teach the mashed potato is steam cooked at the claimed temperature for the claimed period of time.
Tiffany et al. teaches a method of making mashed potato (abstract) comprising cooking the potato by steaming at a temperature of about 200-280oF for about 5-10 minutes (paragraphs 6 and 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Bunke et al. to previously steam cook the mashed potato as claimed since the prior art recognizes such a process for obtaining mashed potato, since the evidence of record does not indicate criticality and unexpected results associated with the range, and since the values would have been used during routine experimentation and optimization due to factors such as desired characteristics of the final product such as flavor, texture/mouthfeel, and nutritional profile.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunke et al. (US 2009/0202700 A1) in view of Shah et al. (US 11,291,226 B1) and Gocha et al. (US 2012/0114824 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bandoh et al. (US 2018/0228189 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Bunke et al. does not teach the vegetable is previously steamed as claimed.
Bandoh et al. teaches steam blanching raw vegetables to inhibit undesirable enzyme action and provide an antimicrobial effect (paragraph 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Bunke et al. to previously steam cook the vegetables as claimed since steam blanching is a well-known process for vegetables, since the evidence of record does not indicate criticality and unexpected results associated with the range, and since the values would have been used during routine experimentation and optimization due to factors such as retention of desirable characteristics (e.g., color, texture/mouthfeel) of the vegetables.
Regarding claim 4, the combination applied to claim 3 teaches partially cooked vegetable as stated for said claim. The same combination is applied to claim 4 and would have been obvious for the same reasons. Bunke et al. teaches comminuting the vegetable as stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0338. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6.
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.
/BRYAN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights