DETAILED ACTION
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 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 and 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, ln 12 – 13 recites “rotating the sheet around the ingredients from the second end of the sheet toward the first end of sheet”. It would appear the claim should recite ‘rotating the sheet around the ingredients from the second end of the sheet toward the first end of the sheet’.
Claim 8 recites “the wrapping having a pouch portion on a first end and free portion on a second end”. It would appear the claim should recite ‘the wrapping having a pouch portion on a first end and a free portion on a second end’.
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 8 – 16 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 8, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the ingredients”.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear if the “one or more ingredients of the handroll” recited in line 17 are the same as “the ingredients” recited in line 14 or some other ingredients not heretofore recited.
Claim 8 recites “a first end of the sheet is sized to fit within the pouch portion of the wrapping; and one or more ingredients of the handroll”. It is not understood how, if the first end of the sheet is to fit within the pouch portion of the wrapping it would also fit one or more ingredients of the handroll. For the purposes of examination the claim has been interpreted as reciting ‘a first end of the sheet is sized to fit within the pouch portion of the wrapping and one or more ingredients of the handroll are on the free portion of the second end’.
Regarding claim 9, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the ingredients”.
Regarding claim 9, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the free end of the wrapping”.
Regarding claim 9, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the pouch end”.
Regarding claim 10, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the ingredients”.
Regarding claim 10, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the free end of the wrapping”.
Regarding claim 12, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the ingredients”.
Regarding claim 15, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the overlapping layers”.
Regarding claim 15, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the top layer”.
Claims 11 and 13 – 16 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6 – 12, and 14 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tezuka US 4,247,564.
Regarding claim 1, Tezuka discloses a method for wrapping a handroll, which method comprises providing a sheet (laver 25) and ingredients (rice ball 26) for a handroll in a wrapping. The wrapping comprises a free end (portion g) and a pouch portion (package 21) having two overlapping layers (borders f, f’) and a first end of the sheet is held within the pouch portion (fig. 4 at h) and a second end of the sheet is placed on top of the free end of the wrapping (extra portion g). The ingredients are placed on top of the sheet at the free end of the wrapping (fig. 4), and the wrapping is wrapped around the sheet and the ingredients in a circular fashion such that the first end of the sheet remains within the pouch portion and does not contact the ingredients (wrapped in one direction from the edge j . . . to form the package). Tezuka further discloses unwrapping the wrapping such that the ingredients are on top of the second end of the sheet, the sheet if then rotated around the ingredients from the second end of the sheet toward the first end of sheet while extracting the first end of the sheet from the pouch portion until the sheet fully encompasses the ingredients and the first end of the sheet is removed from the pouch portion, thereby forming the handroll (col. 2, ln 46 – col. 3, ln 8).
Regarding claim 3, Tezuka discloses the sheet comprises seaweed (laver 25) (col. 2, ln 55).
Regarding claim 4, Tezuka discloses the ingredients would include rice (26).
Regarding claim 6, Tezuka discloses the wrapping is rectangular and the sheet is in the form of a rectangular sheet (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, discloses the wrapping would be a plastic polymer (col. 1, ln 66).
Regarding claim 8, Tezuka discloses a kit capable of transporting and wrapping the components of a handroll which kit comprises a wrapping made of a flexible product or film (vinyl) (col. 1, ln 66). The wrapping has a pouch portion (21) on a first end and free portion on a second end and the pouch portion is comprised of two overlapping layers of the flexible product or film (fig. 4). There is a sheet capable of enclosing the ingredients of the handroll (25) which sheet is made of an edible food product (laver) and a first end of the sheet is sized to fit within the pouch portion of the wrapping, and one or more ingredients of the handroll are on the free portion of the second end (col. 2, ln 46 – col. 3, ln 8 and fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Tezuka discloses the kit is in a wrapped configuration such that the first end of the sheet is held within the pouch portion and a second end of the sheet is placed on top of the free end of the wrapping (fig. 4), the ingredients are placed on top of the sheet at the second end of the wrapping (fig. 4), and the wrapping would be wrapped around the sheet and the ingredients in a circular fashion such that the first end of the sheet remains within the pouch end and does not contact the ingredients (when the package is wound) (col. 2, ln 46 – col. 3, ln 8 and fig 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 10, Tezuka discloses that when the kit is in an unwrapped configuration the first end of the sheet is held within the pouch portion and a second end of the sheet is placed on top of the free end of the wrapping, the ingredients are placed on top of the sheet at the second end of the wrapping, and the wrapping is generally in a flat arrangement (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Tezuka discloses the sheet would be seaweed (laver 25) (col. 2, ln 55).
Regarding claim 12, Tezuka discloses the ingredients would include rice (26).
Regarding claim 14, Tezuka discloses the wrapping is rectangular and the sheet is in the form of a rectangular sheet (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Tezuka discloses the overlapping layers of the pouch portion comprises of a rectangular top layer that overlays the first end of the wrapping such that borders (f, h, f’) on three sides of the top layer are attached to the corresponding borders of the first end of the wrapping that they overlap, thereby resulting in an opening between the top layer and the first end of the wrapping along a non-attached fourth border (package opening i) of the top layer (col. 2. ln 46 – 60).
Regarding claim 16, discloses the wrapping would be a plastic polymer (col. 1, ln 66).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tezuka US 4,247,564.
Claim 2 differs from Tezuka in the step of rotating the sheet further comprises holding down the pouch portion of the wrapping. Tezuka discloses that when the sheet is rotated the position of the package is not changed (col. 3, ln 1 – 8) which is to say that the step of rotating the sheet obviously further comprises holding down the pouch portion of the wrapping.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tezuka US 4,247,564 as further evidenced by Kobayashi US 4,251,553.
Claims 5 and 13 differ from Tezuka in the protein based ingredient being selected from the group consisting of fish, First it is noted that claims 4 and 12 respectively only require one ingredient therefore it is not required that Tezuka meet the further limitation of the non-selected groups via subsequent dependent claims. Nevertheless, as further evidenced by Kobayashi it is conventional and well known in the art that common protein based ingredients used in handrolls would consist of fish (col. 1, B. Description of the Prior Art) therefore it would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to have the protein based ingredient as fish.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAIM A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 09:00-18:00.
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 please telephone the Examiner.
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.
/C.S./
Chaim SmithExaminer, Art Unit 1791 02 July 2026
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights