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 .
Status of the Application
Receipt of the Response and Amendment after Non-Final Office Action filed 08/18/2026 and 08/31/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following rejections by virtue of the amendment or cancellation of the claims and/or persuasive remarks: (1) the objection to claim 2 has been withdrawn; and (2) the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections of claims 1-3 and 7 have been withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-10
Withdrawn claims: 4-6, 8
Previously cancelled claims: None
Newly cancelled claims: None
Amended claims: 1-2
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 1-3, 7, 9-10
Currently rejected claims: 1-3, 7, 9-10
Allowed claims: None
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “pouring water sufficient to gelatinize starch after microwave cooking” should be read as “pouring water sufficient to gelatinize starch in the fat- and/or oil-starch mixture”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 6,770,312 B1; IDS citation) as evidenced by Ron (Ron, “Back to the Basics Part 3: Demi-Glace”, 2015, The Chopping Block, https://www.thechoppingblock.com/blog/back-to-the-basics-demi-glace; previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a frozen food comprising a cooked main ingredient (corresponding to boiled rice grains or boiled pasta pieces); a fat- and/or oil-starch mixture (corresponding to a water migration-preventing layer comprising a mixture of starch and oil); and a concentrated liquid soup (corresponding to a thicker primary sauce as the inner sauce layer wherein the primary sauce has a water content no higher than 60 wt.%) such as sauce demi-glace (column 2, lines 36-41; column 2, lines 54-56; column 4, line 65- column 5, line 4; column 5, lines 18-20; column 6, lines 54-64). Demi-glace has a viscosity that allows it to easily coat the back of a spoon and to maintain a defined trail if a fingertip is dragged through it as evidenced by Ron ( page 5, 3rd paragraph). This viscosity is considered to fall within the viscosity of concentrated liquid soup recited in present claim 1.
Yamamoto teaches that the fat- and/or oil-starch mixture is coated onto the cooked main ingredient; that the concentrated liquid soup is then applied on top of the fat- and/or oil-starch mixture; and that the product is then frozen (Fig. 2; column 2, lines 36-41; column 6, lines 54-64). Therefore, the entire surface of the main ingredient is covered with the fat- and/or oil-starch mixture; and the entire surface of the main ingredient covered with the fat- and/or oil-starch mixture is covered with the concentrated liquid soup, including an upper side part of the main ingredient. As such, the main ingredient, the fat and oil-starch mixture, and the concentrated liquid soup are frozen in an integrated state as recited in present claim 1.
Yamamoto teaches that the fat and/or oil may be added to the main ingredient in a concentration of 5 wt.% or less (column 7, lines 19-20); and that the starch may be added to the main ingredient in a concentration of 0.1-10 wt.% (column 7, lines 40-41). Therefore, the concentration of the fat- and/or oil-starch mixture may be from greater than 0.1 wt.% to 17.6 wt.% by weight of the main ingredient (corresponding to the combined weights of starch and fat/oil being 0.1 wt.% to 15 wt.% of the fat- and/or oil-starch mixture); and the concentration of starch in the fat- and/or oil-starch mixture may be from 2 wt.% to 33 wt.%. Yamamoto also teaches that the concentrated liquid soup may be added to the main ingredient in a concentration of 5-20 wt.% (column 5, lines 20-22). Therefore, the concentration of concentrated liquid soup may be from 5.3-25 wt.% based on the weight of the main ingredient. These concentrations overlap the concentrations recited in present claim 1.
In regard to the overlapping ranges disclosed in Yamamoto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any portions of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art references, particularly in view of the fact that; "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages" In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.I.
Yamamoto teaches that the frozen food further comprises an outer secondary sauce having a water content of at least 70 wt.%, and that the secondary sauce mixes with the primary sauce when the food is served (column 5, lines 40-47; column 6, lines 3-5, 61-66). Yamamoto teaches that the frozen food becomes ready to eat after microwave cooking (column 9, lines 27-29). Since Yamamoto discloses that the frozen food is microwaved and discloses that the secondary sauce comprising water in an amount of at least 70 wt.% mixes with the primary sauce when the food is served (i.e., after microwave cooking), Yamamoto at least suggests that the frozen food becomes ready to eat after microwave cooking and pouring water sufficient to gelatinize starch onto the frozen food, wherein the secondary sauce corresponds to the claimed water sufficient to gelatinize starch in the fat- and/or oil-starch mixture (i.e., the claim does not require the water to have any specific properties which serve to gelatinize starch. As such, the mere presence of water is considered to be “water sufficient to gelatinize starch”).
Furthermore, since present claim 1 does not actually require a method step of pouring water onto the frozen food after microwave cooking (as the claims are directed to the frozen food product itself, not a method of preparing food from the frozen food product), the disclosure in Yamamoto stating that the frozen food becomes ready to eat after microwave cooking (column 9, lines 27-29) is also considered to meet the limitation that the frozen food becomes ready to eat by pouring water sufficient to gelatinize starch as the frozen food of Yamamoto is ready to eat after microwaving regardless of any further steps occurring after microwaving.
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the main ingredient is noodles (corresponding to pasta pieces) (column 2, lines 36-38).
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the main ingredient is noodles (corresponding to pasta pieces) (column 2, lines 36-38) as recited in present claim 3. Therefore, the main ingredient is considered to have an upper surface and a lower surface as recited in present claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Yamamoto teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the frozen food for microwave cooking is packaged (column 2, lines 27-35). The packaging is a freezer container which is filled with the main ingredient as presently claimed.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 6,770,312 B1; IDS citation) as evidenced by Ron (Ron, “Back to the Basics Part 3: Demi-Glace”, 2015, The Chopping Block, https://www.thechoppingblock.com/blog/back-to-the-basics-demi-glace; previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, as further evidenced by Stanciu (Stanciu, I., “Rheology of lard”, 2026, UKR Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, vol., 2, Issue 4, pages 165-169, https://doi.org/J0.5281/zenodo.19842825; previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the fat or oil in the fat- and/or oil-starch mixture may be lard (column 7, lines 14-18). Lard is a non-Newtonian fluid at 25°C as evidenced by Stanciu (page 166, 1st column, 2nd paragraph; page 167, Fig. 3). Therefore, the fat or oil in the fat- and/or oil-starch mixture of Yamamoto may be a non-Newtonian fluid at 25°C as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto teaches the invention as described above in claim 2, including the main ingredient is noodles (corresponding to pasta pieces) (column 2, lines 36-38).
Response to Arguments filed 08/18/2026
Claim Objections: Applicant amended claims 1 and 2 to fully address the objections as stated in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the objection of claim 2 is withdrawn. Claim 1 remains objected to for the reason provided above.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §112(b) of claims 1-3 and 7: Applicant amended claim 1 too fully address the rejections. Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 1 and 3 over Yamamoto as evidenced by Ron; claims 2 and 7 over Yamamoto as evidenced by Ron and Stanciu: Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered and are not considered to overcome the prior art rejections.
Applicant argued that the cited prior art does not disclose or suggest a frozen food wherein a fat- and/or oil-starch mixture is located only on an upper side part or an entire surface of a main ingredient. Applicant argued that the upper side part and the entire surface of the main ingredient recited in the present claims both refer to upper surfaces of the main ingredient. Applicant argued that Yamamoto teaches that the fat- and/or oil-starch mixture is coated onto the main ingredient instead of that the fat- and/or oil-starch mixture is located only on an upper surface or the entire surface of the main ingredient as presently claimed (Applicant’s Remarks, page 5, 1st paragraph under “Remarks” – page 7, 1st paragraph).
However, it is unclear as to why the Applicant interprets the phrase “the entire surface of the main ingredient” as meaning the same as the phrase “an upper side part” as the mere presence of the word “or” dividing the phrases “an upper side part” and “the entire surface of the main ingredient” means that these phrases have different meanings. Furthermore, the present specification at [0025] states “add the fat- and/or oil-starch mixture so as to cover the entire surface of the main ingredient, as shown in Figure 2”; and Figure 2 shows that the fat- and/or oil-starch mixture (indicated by #3 and the light gray shading) is present on the upper side part and sides of the main ingredient. Therefore, the present specification does not define “the entire surface of the main ingredient” to be only the upper side part of the main ingredient, but instead defines “the entire surface of the main ingredient” as being the entire outer surface of the main ingredient. Since Yamamoto teaches coating the main ingredient with a fat- and/or oil-starch mixture, Yamamoto teaches covering the entire surface of the main ingredient with the fat- and/or oil-starch mixture as presently claimed.
Since the prior art has been shown to render the present claims obvious and Applicant’s arguments have been shown to be unpersuasive, the rejections of the claims are maintained as written herein.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.
/K.P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights