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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it’s too short. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 2,6-8,11,13,16-17 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.
In claim 2, the limitation “ wherein the method increases gloss of food, coating a surface of food, prevent overcoating of food and improves surface roughness “ is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what the comparative basis is. Increase gloss of food and improve surface roughness in comparison to what? What degree of gloss or surface roughness is required to be considered as increase or improve. It’s unclear what is intended by “ coating a surface” because claim 1 already recites coat a surface. It’s unclear what is meant by “ prevents overcoating” because it’s not clear what would be considered as overcoating.
In claim 6, the limitation “ compression molding” is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what compression encompasses.
In claim 7, the limitation “ cereal” is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what foods are encompassed under such term.
In claim 8, the limitation “ Korean traditional sweets” is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what food is considered as Korean traditional sweets.
In claim 11, the recitation of “ the hardness” does not have proper antecedent basis.
In claim 13, the limitation “ an a value of 9.5 or more” is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what the value indicates.
Claim 16 has the same problem as claim 7.
Claim 17 has the same problem as claim 8.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,4,7,8,10,11,14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Armentrout ( 2017/0135386).
For claims 1,2 Armentrout discloses a method for coating a surface of a food. The method comprises the step of coating a surface of food with a composition comprising kestose. ( see paragraphs 0007, 0029, 0015). The preamble for prevent breakage of food is not limiting because the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness. Armentrout discloses the same step of coating a surface of food with a coating composition comprising kestose. Furthermore, Armentrout discloses the same step; thus, it’s inherent the prevention of breakage is present. For claim 2, Armentrout discloses the same step using the same composition; thus, it’s inherent the properties are present.
For claims 4,7, 8,15,16,17 Armentrout discloses processed grain foods, snacks, crackers, fruit chip, nuts, cookies, bars etc.. ( see paragraph 0028)
For claims 10, 11,14,Armentrout discloses sugar-coated food wherein the surface is coated with a composition comprising kestose. ( see paragraphs 0007, 0015). For claims 11,14, Armentrout discloses food comprising the same composition as claimed; thus, it’s inherent the properties are present.
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) 3,5-6,9,12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armentrout.
Armentrout does not disclose the amount coated as in claim 3, the fermenting and compression molding as in claims 5-6, the hardness value as in claim 9, the moisture content as in claim 12 and the value as in claim 13.
Armentrout discloses in paragraph 0029 that the thickness, coverage and pattern of the applied coating may each be varied as desired. Thus, it would have been readily obvious to one skilled in the art to vary the amount of coating depending on the thickness and coverage wanted on the surface. Such parameter can readily be determined by one skilled in the art through routine experimentation. Armentrout discloses a variety foods including grain based foods, baked goods such as donut, pretzels, cracter, cereal flakes etc.. It would have been obvious to ferment the grain and to mold depending on the type of product made. For example, yeast donut require fermentation of the cereal flour which is a grain and donut require molding. The claim does not define compression molding; thus, any molding is considered compression molding. Armentrout discloses a variety of foods. The hardness and moisture content of the food varies with the type of foods. A crunchy RTE cereal is harder and has lower moisture than cake. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the hardness and moisture content depending on the type of food to obtain optimum taste and texture. It would have been within the skill of one in the art to determine the L value depending on the type of food and color wanted for the food.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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.
September 28, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights