Patent Application 17769701 - METHOD FOR PRODUCING FRIED VEGETABLE FOOD - Rejection
Patent Application 17769701 - METHOD FOR PRODUCING FRIED VEGETABLE FOOD
Title: METHOD FOR PRODUCING FRIED VEGETABLE FOOD PRODUCT AND FRIED VEGETABLE FOOD PRODUCT
Application Information
- Invention Title: METHOD FOR PRODUCING FRIED VEGETABLE FOOD PRODUCT AND FRIED VEGETABLE FOOD PRODUCT
- Application Number: 17769701
- Submission Date: 2025-04-07T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2022-04-15T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2022-04-15T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 426
- National Sub-Class: 438000
- Examiner Employee Number: 76251
- Art Unit: 1791
- Tech Center: 1700
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 0
- 103 Rejections: 2
Cited Patents
The following patents were cited in the rejection:
Office Action Text
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Sole independent claim 1 now recites a “pressing means at a holding position A” and “pressing means, by moving the pressing means to a compression point B” . The term is considered a generic placeholder for structures that can be used to press material.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2017/010869 (VAN DOORN) in view of WO2017154572 and United States Patent No. 5,466,475 (YAMASAKI) (see IDS of 12/4/2023). United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0059423 (KITANO) is the United States equivalent of WO2017154572 and relied upon in this Official Action.
PNG
media_image1.png
470
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, VAN DOORN teaches cutting potatoes pg. 2, lines 20-25. At page 6, lines 20-25, it is taught that the shape and dimensions (i.e., width, length, thickness) can vary based on desired. It would have been obvious to provide a flake shape as it is an attractive shape.
As to the providing step, it is taught that the potato can be fried in oi (i.e., pg. 38, lines 14-20).
As to the forming step, a mass of potato noodles are formed by combining them together and frying the noodles (pg. 38, lines 14-20).
As to the frying step, VAN DOORN is silent as to using a retainer in the container and pressing the noodles as claimed.
KITANO teaches a method and apparatus for a method for drying by frying a group of noodle strings held in a retainer [0008]. The retainer has space so that noodles can be added [0008]. See also Figure 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
228
870
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The retainers are identified as reference numeral 31. The retainers are conveyed through the oil [0041]. As the retainers are conveyed through the oil, a lid can be used [0046]. It is taught that a lid is in an open holding position as the noodles are “half-fried” but constrained in the retainer [0044], [0045]. The noodles are then fully fried. The retainer completely enters the oil and the lid is moved to a closed position (not shown). A retainer lid conveyor 4 is constructed so that the openings of the cup-shaped containers can be covered with the retainer lids after the groups of noodle strings to be fried are held in the cup-shaped containers of the retainer 31[0046] – [0047], [0066].
Thus, it would have been obvious to fry the noodles in a similar retainer with two positions so that one can obtain homogenously shaped noodles.
As noted above, Kitano does teach applying pressure to keep the noodles in the retainer and help maintain their shape [0046]-[0047] and [0066]. KITANO silent as applying pressure at point B during or after frying.
However, YAMASAKI teaches at col. 3, lines 5-20 that it is desirable to push down on the noodles with a pressing means during frying so that a uniform distribution is obtained.
Thus, it would have been obvious to press down on the noodles with a pressing means during frying in the references above so that a uniform distribution is obtained.
PNG
media_image3.png
78
492
media_image3.png
Greyscale
VAN DOORN teaches that a pre-soak comprising sugar and salt can be used (pg. 38, lines 10-15).
PNG
media_image4.png
76
632
media_image4.png
Greyscale
VAN DOORN is silent as to compressing the vegetable material and cooling the product in a compressed state.
KITANO teaches that after the drying by frying, the lid is removed, and the noodle lump is taken out of the container. The noodle lump maintains its shape and is taken out and cooled [0049].
It would have been obvious to combine these steps with VAN DOORN so that the product could be cooled, packaged and distributed for sale [0050].
PNG
media_image5.png
78
636
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
84
504
media_image6.png
Greyscale
VAN DOORN teaches that the strings in are cut to a width and thickness of 2.5 x 2.5 mm and range from 30 -150mm length (pg. 39, lines 19-35). Thus, it would have been obvious to vary the size so as to not overcook or undercook the potato.
PNG
media_image7.png
84
628
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
82
502
media_image8.png
Greyscale
As to claims 7-8, VAN DORN are silent as to using a cup container and compressing and wrapping the final product.
KITANO teaches that after the drying by frying, the lid is removed, and the noodle lump is taken out of the container. The noodle lump taken out is cooled for a prescribed period of time to obtain instant fried noodles [0049]. The noodles are then wrapped [0050].
It would have been obvious to combine these steps with VAN DOORN so that the product could be sold [0050].
PNG
media_image9.png
132
636
media_image9.png
Greyscale
VAN DOORN teaches that an abrasive peeler can be used (pg. 35, lines 25-35). The abrasive peeler would naturally provide cavities in the vegetable towards the thickness direction of the mass.
PNG
media_image10.png
86
632
media_image10.png
Greyscale
At pg. 14, lines 1-10 of VAN DOORN, it is taught that the potatoes can be rehydrated for consumption.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN DOORN, KITANO and YAMASAKI as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stacy, Making Celeriac Root Pasta Noodles, Beauty and Foodie accessed at https://beautyandthefoodie.com/making-celeriac-root-pasta-noodles/, June 13, 2017 (STACY).
PNG
media_image11.png
70
656
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The references above are silent as to using a root vegetable. STACY teaches that celeriac root are paleo, low carb, gluten-free, and vegan (see pg. 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use celeriac root to make noodles, as they are paleo, low carb, gluten-free, and vegan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that VAN DOORN is silent as to using a retainer and that WO’915 does not teach the pressing means at recited holding positions.
However, KITANO and YAMASAKI are now cited to teach this feature.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PHILIP A DUBOIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30-6:00p.
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 on 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.
/PHILIP A DUBOIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
(Ad) Transform your business with AI in minutes, not months
✓
Custom AI strategy tailored to your specific industry needs
✓
Step-by-step implementation with measurable ROI
✓
5-minute setup that requires zero technical skills
Trusted by 1,000+ companies worldwide
