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 .
The status of the claims stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-8
Withdrawn claims: 4-6, 8
Claims currently under consideration: 1-3, 7
Currently rejected claims: 1-3, 7
Allowed claims: None
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-3, 7) in the reply filed on 05/01/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that: (1) the Examiner did not furnish a copy of the Ron reference with the Office Action; (2) the Examiner’s reliance on MPEP 2144.05.I constitutes an obviousness analysis appropriate for a substantive examination under 35 U.S.C. §103, not for a restriction under PCT Rules 13.1 and 13.2; and (3) product and process claims inherently share unity when the process is specifically directed to making the product (Applicant’s Remarks, page 2, 3rd paragraph – page 3, 2nd paragraph). This is not found persuasive due to the following reasons.
In reference to point (1) above, the Examiner filed (i.e., uploaded) a copy of the Ron reference into the present application’s file wrapper as “Non-Patent Literature” on 03/10/2026 at the same time the Examiner filed the Office Action (i.e., Requirement for Restriction/Election). Per Office practices, a reference is not directly attached to the Office Action in which the reference is first mentioned; the reference is uploaded as a separate file in the file wrapper at the same the Office Action in which the reference is mentioned is uploaded. Both the Office Action and Ron reference were made available to the Applicant in the application’s file wrapper as of 03/10/2026 and presently remain available to the Applicant in the application’s file wrapper. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding this point are unpersuasive.
In reference to point (2) above, PCT Rules 13.1 and 13.2 do not mention an obviousness analysis and thus, cannot deem an obviousness analysis as being inappropriate for a restriction under PCT Rules 13.1 and 13.2. Furthermore, a substantive examination under 35 U.S.C. §103 exceeds the requirements needed to show that an instantly claimed technical feature does not make a contribution over cited prior art. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding this point are unpersuasive.
In reference to point (3) above, as stated in paragraphs 11-14 of the Restriction Requirement filed 03/10/2026, despite the product of Group I sharing technical features with the method of Group II (i.e., both Groups require the features recited in claim 1), these shared technical features are not special technical features as the shared technical features do not make a contribution over Yamamoto as evidenced by Ron. “Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.” (Restriction/Election Requirement filed 03/10/2026, paragraph 2). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding this point are unpersuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4-6 and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because “fat and/or oil-starch mixture” should be read as “fat- and/or oil-starch mixture).
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
The term “hot” in the phrase “hot water” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hot” 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 this examination, the term “hot” in the phrase “hot water” will be interpreted as meaning water that has a temperature that is above room temperature (i.e., 20°C).
Claims 2-3 and 7 are rejected by reason of dependency from claim 1.
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 and 3 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, including an upper side part 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, including an upper side part of the main ingredient covered with the fat- and/or oil-starch mixture, is covered with the concentrated liquid soup so that 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.
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 hot water onto the frozen food, wherein the secondary sauce corresponds to the claimed hot water.
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).
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).
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the fat or oil in the fat-/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-/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).
Conclusion
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.
/KELLY P KERSHAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights