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 .
This office action is in response to the application filed on January 17, 2025. The earliest effective filing date of the application is November 4, 2024.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d), filed on November 4, 2024.
Status of Application
The claims filed on January 17, 2025, have been entered. The status of the claims stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1 – 10
Withdrawn claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 1 – 10
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 – 10 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.
Claim 1 recites “the gochujang that has fluidity equal to or less than a predetermined threshold as the moisture is evaporated” which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a predetermined threshold” 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. For the purpose of examination, “the gochujang that has fluidity equal to or less than a predetermined threshold as the moisture is evaporated” is interpreted to indicate the gochujang of the cooling step has decreased fluidity relative to the gochujang prior to the evaporation step.
Claim 7 recites “the fluidity of the gochujang is equal to or less than the predetermined threshold” which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a predetermined threshold” 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. For the purpose of examination, “the fluidity of the gochujang is equal to or less than the predetermined threshold” is interpreted to indicate the gochujang has decreased fluidity relative to the gochujang prior to the evaporation step.
Claims 2 – 6 and 8 – 10 are rejected as dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 102446509 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a method of making a solid slice of red pepper paste (i.e., gochujang) comprising the steps of:
(a) putting moist red pepper paste (i.e., gochujang) in a container ([0010]);
(b) stirring and heating the red pepper paste (i.e., evaporating moisture from gochujang that has fluidity by containing moisture – [0011]);
(c) maintaining the heat to ensure the red pepper paste (i.e., gochujang) loses additional moisture after losing fluidity ([0012]);
(d) cooling the solid red pepper paste (i.e., cooling the gochujang that has fluidity equal to or less than a predetermined threshold as the moisture is evaporated – [0013]).
Lee teaches by applying heat to the red pepper paste (i.e., gochujang) during step (b), moisture evaporates, reducing the fluidity of the paste, and eventually solidifying it ([0033] – [0039]). Therefore, Lee teaches the solid red pepper paste (i.e., gochujang) that is cooled in step (d) has a fluidity equal to or less than a predetermined threshold as the moisture is evaporated.
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches the red pepper paste (i.e., gochujang) is cooled after putting it into a standard frame (i.e., shaping it – [0044]). Lee teaches after entering the frame, the red pepper paste (i.e., gochujang) cools and solidifies ([0044]). Therefore, Lee teaches the red pepper paste (i.e., gochujang) is cooled by shaping it.
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches the red pepper paste (i.e., gochujang) is shaped into a slice (i.e., a plate) of thickness of 3.3 mm ([0044]; [0046]).
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.
Claims 2, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 102446509 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bozkurt et al. (Effects of production techniques on the quality of hot pepper paste. Journal of Food Engineering. Vol 64. Pp. 173 – 178. (2004)).
Regarding claim 2, Lee does not teach step (b) is performed in a vacuum state.
Bozkurt teaches a method of making hot pepper paste wherein the hot pepper paste is vacuum concentrated while heating (p. 174, 2.1 Production of hot pepper paste, paragraph 1). Bozkurt teaches hot pepper paste produced by vacuum evaporation techniques had a higher pH than traditional or open-pan techniques (p. 175, 3.1 pH values, paragraph 3). Bozkurt teaches color scores produced by vacuum techniques were superior to traditional or open-pan techniques (p. 178, 3.6 Sensory quality, paragraph 2).
Lee and Bozkurt are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, methods of making pepper paste. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed step (b) in a vacuum state, as taught by Bozkurt in the method of Lee because vacuum evaporation results in a hot pepper paste with a higher pH and superior color relative to traditional or open-pan techniques.
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches the red pepper paste is stirred while it is heated in step (b) ([0011]; [0033]).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches the stirring is finished when the load (i.e., pressure) against the stirrer reaches a certain level ([0040] – [0042]). Therefore, Lee teaches the fluidity of the red pepper paste (i.e., gochujang) is determined by detecting a pressure applied to the stirrer.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 102446509 B1) in view of Bozkurt et al. (Effects of production techniques on the quality of hot pepper paste. Journal of Food Engineering. Vol 64. Pp. 173 – 178. (2004)), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of VacuuBrand (Gentle product evaporation. VacuuBrand. (2020) Retrieved from: https://www.vacuubrand.com/news/bloguebersicht/gentle-product-evaporation).
Regarding claim 3, Bozkurt teaches the hot pepper paste is vacuum concentrated while heating via a rotary evaporator (p. 174, 2.1 Production of hot pepper paste, paragraph 1).
The modified method of Lee does not teach the vacuum of step (b) is between 0.001 and 1 mbar.
VacuuBrand teaches process parameters relevant to rotary evaporation. VacuuBrand teaches by applying vacuum, boiling temperatures are lowered and heat-sensitive materials are protected, even as high-boiling point solvents evaporate at modest temperatures (p. 3, paragraph 2). VacuuBrand teaches the lower the process pressure, the lower the required temperature (p. 4, paragraph 1). Therefore, the pressure in the rotary evaporator is a result-effective variable.
While the modified method of Lee does not teach the vacuum of step (b) is between 0.001 and 1 mbar, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the pressure in the rotary evaporator, including to between 0.001 and 1 mbar, during routine optimization to find the best balance of pressure and temperature to achieve the desired evaporation from the red pepper paste (i.e., gochujang) of Lee. MPEP §2144.05(II) states where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The claimed evaporation pressure, between 0.001 and 1 mbar, would thus be obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches the heating step (b) is conducted at 80 – 90 °C ([0033]).
The range of heating temperatures in step (b) of Lee, 80 – 90 °C, overlaps with the claimed range of 55 – 80 °C. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 102446509 B1) in view of Bozkurt et al. (Effects of production techniques on the quality of hot pepper paste. Journal of Food Engineering. Vol 64. Pp. 173 – 178. (2004)) and VacuuBrand (Gentle product evaporation. VacuuBrand. (2020) Retrieved from: https://www.vacuubrand.com/news/bloguebersicht/gentle-product-evaporation), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Rotovaps (Why Rotary Evaporation Is More Efficient Than Standard Distillation. Rotovaps. (2018) Retrieved from: https://rotovaps.net/blogs/blog/why-rotary-evaporation-is-more-efficient-than-standard-distillation).
Lee teaches the red pepper paste is heated for 5.5 to 6.5 hours ([0033]).
Lee does not teach the heating step (b) is conducted for 2 to 3.5 hours.
Rotovaps teaches aside from lowering the boiling point, a lower pressure can speed up the rate of evaporation (p. 1, paragraph 4). Rotovaps teaches a solvent will evaporate quicker when it is close to its boiling point (p. 1, paragraph 4). Rotovaps teaches pressure pushing down on a solvent makes it difficult for molecules to escape as vapor (p. 1, paragraph 4). Rotovaps teaches a lower pressure means those molecules can enter the atmosphere at a faster rate (p. 1, paragraph 4).
While the modified method of Lee does not teach the heating step (b) is conducted for 2 to 3.5 hours, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the heating time of step (b) to account for the additional evaporation speed provided by the rotary evaporator, including to between 2 to 3.5 hours, during routine optimization to achieve the desired evaporation from the red pepper paste (i.e., gochujang) of Lee. MPEP §2144.05(II) states where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The claimed heating step (b) duration, between 2 to 3.5 hours, would thus be obvious.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 102446509 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carolina (Newton’s Law of Cooling. Carolina Knowledge Center. (2022) Retrieved from: https://knowledge.carolina.com/discipline/interdisciplinary/math/newtons-law-of-cooling/).
Lee does not teach the cooling step (d) is conducted at -20 to -18 °C for 0.5 to 1 hours.
Carolina teaches Newton’s law of cooling states that the rate at which an object cools is proportional to the difference in temperature between the object and the object’s surroundings (p. 2, paragraph 1). Carolina teaches, for example, a glass of hot water will cool down faster in a cold room than in a hot room (p. 2, paragraph 1).
While Lee does not teach the cooling step (d) is conducted at -20 to -18 °C for 0.5 to 1 hours, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the cooling step (d) temperature and time during routine optimization to find the best balance between the cooling temperature and time which results in the desired solid red pepper paste (i.e., gochujang). MPEP §2144.05(II) states where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The claimed cooling step (d) temperature and time, -20 to -18 °C for 0.5 to 1 hours, would thus be obvious.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARK JULIA MORENO whose telephone number is (571)272-2337. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 - 4:30 M - F.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/JEFFREY P MORNHINWEG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/L.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights