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 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 4-5, 7-8, 12-18, 22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olofsson et al. (6251447) in view of Kato et al. (20040253349).
Olofsson teaches a frozen product comprising:
a container (col. 4 lines 41-49)
at least two kinds of frozen foods (col. 3 lines 23-25; meat, col. 3 line 44 rice), each of the at least two kinds of frozen foods have a temperature rising rate from irradiation of microwaves (col. 1 lines 18-19) and wherein each of the temperature rising rates are different from one another (col. 4 lines 12-15 meat vs col. 3 line 44 rice) and
two or more (col. 5 lines 15-18) separated frozen sauce blocks (col. 2 lines 60-61; pellet form), each having a 3-dimensional solid shape (col. 2 lines 60-61; pellet form 3-Dimensions thus taken to encompass block, alternatively block with respect to uniform shape; block not limited by number of sides) and
wherein:
one of the at least two kinds of frozen foods having a lowest temperature rising rate (col. 4 lines 12-15 meat) includes at least a portion which is not covered by the two or more separated frozen sauce blocks, the portion defining a noncontact surface (fig. 3);
the two or more separated frozen sauce blocks are disposed on an upper surface of the one of the at least two kinds of frozen food of which the temperature rising rate is the lowest (col. 5 lines 15-17 “pellets arranged on the beef”)
the noncontact surface (col. 3 lines 1-5) is selected to allow additional microwave heating to the one of the at least two kinds of frozen foods having the lowest temperature rising rate (fig. 3 same noncontact surface thus allow)
each of the two or more separated frozen sauce blocks has a weight of 4 g or more (col. 3 lines 59-60)
the one of the at least two kinds of frozen foods, of which the temperature rising rate is lowest, comprises a frozen meat or a frozen seafood (col. 3 line 32) and the one of the at least two kinds of frozen foods, of which the temperature rising rate is highest, comprises a grain material (col. 3 line 44 rice) and
the one of the at least two kinds of frozen foods, of which the temperature rising rate is highest (col. 3 lines 43-44), and the one of the at least two kinds of frozen foods, of which the temperature rising rate is lowest (col. 3 lines 13-15), are contained in the container in a non-superposed arrangement (col. 5 lines 16-17 respectively; fig. 3 meat vs potato, where it is noted the carbohydrate based ingredient further includes rice), such that neither of the two kinds of frozen foods is disposed on, over, or under the other (col. 3 lines 10-11 spatial arrangement; fig. 3 where it is noted on, over or under is taken with respect to in its entirety), so that the one of the at least two kinds of frozen foods, of which the temperature rising rate is highest, and the one of the at least two kinds of frozen foods, of which the temperature rising rate is lowest, are separated (fig. 3).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to separate the individual groups of food which heat at different rates such that that neither of the two kinds of frozen foods is disposed on, over, or under the other, where neither is taken with respect to any and all. Thus achieving a same frozen meal comprising individual and distinct components assembled in a defined manner and the advantage of positioning the first and second groups of frozen ingredients in a manner that the sauce pellet facilitates the heating of at least one of the first and second groups of ingredients (col. 2 lines 10-12) and assembled in a manner which appears as its ingredients had been individually heated and arranged on the plate as taught by Olofsson (col. 2 lines 27-39).
Olofsson teaches microwavable plated frozen meals comprising individual frozen components including sauce and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of such as taught by Kato.
Kato teaches the frozen food product comprising a sauce for at least partially covering the meat product comprising a gelling agent (par. 0016 last 4 lines).
Thus since both teach a same sauce, since both teach a same desire to maintain the sauce on a top surface of the food product during heating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate a gelling agent into the sauce as taught by Kato for its art recognized purpose of achieving a desired viscosity of the sauce such that the sauce will stay over the ingredients during the heating process as taught by Kato (par. 0020) and desired by Olofsson (col. 4 lines 31-34) in order to provide even cooking enhanced by the spatial arrangement of the ingredients on the entire plated meal (col. 3 lines 9-14).
Olofsson teaches the frozen sauce blocks partially cover the ingredients. Thus since the product size is variable as taught by Olofsson (col. 3 line 30), since the amount of sauce is variable relative the desired size of the food product and desired ratio of sauce to food product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the total content of sauce is 13 wt.% to 17 wt.% with reference to a total of 100 wt.% of the frozen product for microwave cooking thus achieving a same desired food product comprising frozen sauce blocks in an amount that the sauce pellet facilitates the heating of at least one of the first and second groups of ingredients (col. 2 lines 10-12) and/or with respect to a desired amount of sauce relative a food type which is variable as also taught (col. 3 lines 28-33).
Claim 4, wherein the one of the at least two kinds of frozen foods, of which the temperature rising rate is lowest, comprises a frozen meat or a frozen seafood (col. 3 line 32).
Claim 5, wherein the two or more separated frozen sauce blocks are liquefied at a temperature of 40C or more (col. 5 lines 23-24, col. 5 lines 44-45).
With respect to claims 7, 8 and 22 though silent to a dielectric constant of the one or more frozen sauce blocks for a frequency of 2.45 GHz at 25°C is 50 or 55 or more, and a loss factor thereof is 25 or 26 or more. Since the dielectric constant and loss factor are a result of the moisture of the material and the ability to absorb microwave energy and since Olofsson teaches cooking using microwave ovens. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach a dielectric constant of the one or more frozen sauces for a frequency of 2.45 GHz at 25°C is 50 or more, and a loss factor thereof is 25 or more for its art recognized purpose as taught by Olofsson of a sauce adjusted so that the sauce stays over the ingredients during heating and achieving the art recognized microwave heating of the individual ingredients which are selected to achieve the claimed microwavable meal.
Further "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, such as in the instant case a same frozen sauce blocks for absorbing microwaves for heating, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." (see MPEP 2144.04 IIA) "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 of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." (see MPEP 2144.04 IIA). Such as in the instant case by defining a desired “frozen sauce” relative dielectric constant and loss factor.
Applicant is using known components to obtain expected results. There is nothing patentable unless the applicant, by a proper showing, further establishes acoaction or cooperative relationship between the selected ingredients, which produces a new, unexpected, and useful function. In the absence of unexpected results, it is notseen how the claimed invention differs from the teachings of the prior art.
Claim 12, a weight of each of the two or more separated frozen sauce blocks is 10 g (col. 3 line 60).
Claim 13, the frozen product comprises the two or more separated frozen sauce blocks having a 3-dimensional solid shape, and the 3- dimensional solid shape comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of a cylinder (col. 2 line 61 pellet form).
With respect to claim 14, it is noted the claims are directed to a frozen product. Thus with respect to the wherein the two or more separated frozen sauce blocks are prepared by pouring two or more sauces into frames and freezing the sauces, these steps are intermediate steps which are specific to method steps for obtaining the sauce blocks and thus Olofsson is taken with respect to the frozen blocks of the product itself.
Alternatively, since Olofsson teaches a same 3-D block shaped sauce. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the two or more separated frozen sauce blocks are prepared by pouring two or more sauces into frames and freezing the sauces thus achieving a same frozen pellet shaped sauce block as taught by Olofsson and/or since the selection of a known process based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination such as in the instant case obtaining individual shaped sauce pellets as taught.
Claim 15, wherein one of the at least two kinds of frozen foods comprises rice (col. 3 lines 44). Though silent to explicitly teaches the two or more separated frozen sauce blocks are not present on top of the rice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the sauce blocks not on top of the rice thus achieving the purpose of Olofsson of facilitating heating of at least one of the first and second groups of ingredients (col. 2 lines 47-48) which are benefitted from the sauce pellets, such as meat as opposed to the second group of ingredients.
Alternatively, Olofsson teaches the sauce pellets facilitate heating by being placed adjacent to the ingredients (col. 4 lines 4-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the sauce blocks not on top of the rice and instead adjacent, thus achieving the sauce component of the meal for flavoring and predominantly covering the meat components as taught (col. 2 lines 13-15) as opposed to the frozen carbohydrate ingredients, in the instant case rice (col. 3 lines 42-44).
Claim 16, wherein one of the at least two kinds of frozen foods comprises grain material (col. 3 lines 44). Though silent to explicitly teaches the two or more separated frozen sauce blocks are not present on top of the grain material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the sauce blocks not on top of the rice thus achieving the purpose of Olofsson of facilitating heating of at least one of the first and second groups of ingredients (col. 2 lines 47-48) which are benefitted from the sauce pellets, such as meat as opposed to the second group of ingredients.
Alternatively, Olofsson teaches the sauce pellets facilitate heating by being placed adjacent to the ingredients (col. 4 lines 4-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the sauce blocks not on top of the rice and instead adjacent, thus achieving the sauce component of the meal for flavoring and predominantly covering the meat components as taught (col. 2 lines 13-15) as opposed to the frozen carbohydrate ingredients, in the instant case rice (col. 3 lines 42-44).
Claim 17, Olofsson teaches wherein one of the at least two kinds of frozen foods comprises a grain material (col. 3 lines 42-44) and the grain materials are not covered by meat (col. 3 lines 10-11 spatial arrangement; fig. 3 where it is noted on, over or under is taken with respect to in its entirety).
Though silent to explicitly teaches the two or more separated frozen sauce blocks are not present on top of the grain material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the sauce blocks not on top of the rice thus achieving the purpose of Olofsson of facilitating heating of at least one of the first and second groups of ingredients (col. 2 lines 47-48) which are benefitted from the sauce pellets, such as meat as opposed to the second group of ingredients.
Alternatively, Olofsson teaches the sauce pellets facilitate heating by being placed adjacent to the ingredients (col. 4 lines 4-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the sauce blocks not on top of the rice and instead adjacent, thus achieving the sauce component of the meal for flavoring and predominantly covering the meat components as taught (col. 2 lines 13-15) as opposed to the frozen carbohydrate ingredients, in the instant case rice (col. 3 lines 42-44).
Claim 18, Olofsson teaches the sauce blocks adjacent the food with the temperature rising rate which is lowest, i.e. the meat. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach an upper surface of the one of the at least two kinds of frozen food of which the temperature rising rate is the highest is not covered by the two or more separated frozen blocks thus achieving the purpose of Olofsson of facilitating heating of at least one of the first and second groups of ingredients (col. 2 lines 47-48) which are benefitted from the sauce pellets, such as meat as opposed to the second group of ingredients.
Claim 26, Olofsson teaches the sauce blocks adjacent the food with the temperature rising rate which is lowest, i.e. the meat. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the two or more frozen sauce blocks are present only on top of the one of the at least two kinds of frozen food having the lowest temperature rising rate thus achieving the purpose of Olofsson of facilitating heating of at least one of the first and second groups of ingredients (col. 2 lines 47-48) which are benefitted from the sauce pellets, such as meat as opposed to the second group of ingredients.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments directed to Kato and in light of the claim amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in light of the teachings of Olofsson. Kato is relied upon with respect to teaching the sauce further comprising a gelling agent.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN N LEFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571)270-34753475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN N LEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights