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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
All rejections not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.
Claims 39-67 are currently pending in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 41, the limitation “and the two discrete baked egg products are not cooled lower than 35°F prior to the sealing step” is not supported by the disclosure at the time of filing. Applicant’s Remarks indicated that support for the amendments to Claim 41 is found, at least, in paragraph [00111] of the application. The citation disclosed that the product exits from the cooling system with a product temperature of about 35°F to about 42°F; however, there is no discussion or language to convey that the two discrete baked egg products are not cooled lower than 35°F prior to the sealing step. Further, paragraph [00111] does not appear to disclose any subject matter regarding the sealing step. The sealing step appears to be disclosed in paragraph [00116] which indicated that the product is advanced to a tray sealing apparatus; however, there is no language that conveys that the product is not cooled below 35°F prior to sealing.
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 39-40, 43, 45, 47, 49, 59-60, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakermama (Bacon & Cheese Egg Bites, theBAKERMAMA.com) in view of Spyrou (Costco Has Their Own Version of Egg Bites, And They’re Super Cheap), Timmons et al. (US 4,889,741), Hildebrand (US D215271), Gildersleeve et al. (US 2020/0196646), Belser et al. (WO 2012/049233) and Angstrom (How to Control Humidity in Your Cleanroom).
Regarding Claim 39, Bakermama discloses a process for preparing a food product, the process comprising two discrete cavities and an upper peripheral flange (mini muffin pan, image on page 5):
blending a raw egg mixture (whisk together the eggs until smooth, step 2, page 8);
applying a coating of oil to a base of a cavity (spray…with non-stick cooking spray, step 1, page 8);
depositing the blended, raw egg mixture into the cavity (spoon the mixture into the mini muffin cups, step 3, page 8);
baking, in an oven, the blended raw egg mixture disposed in the cavity (Bake for 23-25 minutes, step 4, page 8), wherein at least at one point during the step of heat treating, the formed tray reaches a temperature of about 300°F to about 330°F (Preheat oven to 350°F…step 1, page 8), cooling, via a cooling device (refrigerator, notes, page 8), hermetically sealing the baked egg products (store in an airtight container, notes, page 8).
Bakermama is silent to wherein the egg mixture is deposited to a formed tray having two discrete cavities with an upper peripheral flange having a flat surface, wherein the base is disposed a distance below the upper peripheral flange and the formed tray is comprised of crystallized polyethylene terephthalate (CPET), wherein the formed tray includes a lateral wall extending between and connecting a top portion of the two discrete cavities, and hermetically sealing the cooled two discrete baked egg products in the formed tray under vacuum to provide a modified atmosphere package, wherein a flexible film is sealed to the flat surface of the upper peripheral flange by applying heat and pressure.
Hildebrand is relied on to teach a formed tray having two distinct cavities, an upper peripheral flange having a flat upper surface extending around both of the two discrete cavities, wherein the base Is disposed a distance below the upper peripheral flange and wherein a lateral wall extends between and connect a top portion of the two discrete cavities (see Fig. 1-2- also meets the limitation of Claim 60). Timmons is also relied on to provide a showing of depositing raw egg material into a tray comprising cavities, cooking the raw egg material, and then sealing the egg within the tray it was cooked in (see Fig. 1, and Col. 2, Ln. 44-61). Timmons identifies the package as a “cook-in-package” (Col. 2, Ln. 60) which reduces processing time and thus facilitates the automated process (Col. 2, Ln. 35-40). Spyrou is also relied on to teach similar egg products packaged within trays having a cavity with a base disposed a distance below an upper peripheral flange (see Image on page 3 where the “Egg Bites” are placed in a cavity with a flange), and a flexible film sealed to the upper peripheral flange flat surface (see image below).
In view of the teachings of Spyrou and Timmons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the container of Bakermama so that the egg mixture can be heated and packaged and sealed within the same tray that has a peripheral flange having a flat surface so that it is capable of being cooked within and sealed to facilitate the distribution process. The particular configuration of the package would have been an obvious matter of design choice. Since both Hildebrand and Spyrou are directed to formed trays having two distinct products stored therein, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to store the baked egg product of Bakermama within the tray of Hildebrand based on product choice.
As to the limitation of hermetically sealing under vacuum to provide a modified atmosphere package, Gildersleeve is relied on to teach egg products being packaged after a cooking process (see abstract) in vacuum sealed packages. Gildersleeve also discloses processing the cooling step in a clean room (as per claim 59, see paragraph 20) and gas flushing the package with nitrogen or nitrogen and carbon dioxide mixture (paragraph 39), thus providing a “modified atmosphere packaging”. Therefore, since Spyrou is directed to a hermetically sealed package, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide vacuum sealing to form a modified atmosphere package to further extend the shelf-life of the product. Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a clean room having filtered air to prevent contamination of the baked food products.
As to the limitation of the formed traying being comprised of CPET material, it is noted that Timmons is generic to materials that are capable of “withstanding the cooking process without undesirable chemical or physical changes (see Col. 6, Ln. 15-24). Additionally, the product material should be heat sealable (see Col. 6, Ln. 25-27). Therefore, Belser is relied on to teach an ovenable material made from CPET (Page 12, last paragraph) which is capable of being heated up to 500°F (Page 7, second and third paragraph). Belser utilizes CPET to cook/bake food materials such as appetizers, entrees, and dessert items (see Abstract).
Therefore, since the prior art identifies CPET as a suitable material for withstanding up to 500°F, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06).
As to the limitation of “wherein the upper peripheral flange is not wiped after the baking step and before the sealing step”, there is no evidence within the prior art that the upper peripheral flanges of the formed tray requires a step of wiping prior to sealing. In any case, since Applicant notes that wiping is not required when the cooler has intense condensation controller using multiple dehumidifiers and air circulation (paragraph 127), Gildersleeve is relied on to provide a room having a cooler, a positive air pressure and an air filtration system (paragraph 20). Therefore, it is construed that the clean room of Gildersleeve would have been effective to reduce at least a portion of condensation formed on the formed tray, compared to a packaging process performed in a room without a cooler, positive air pressure and air filtration system. In any case, Angstrom indicates that condensation is a matter of humidity level, where it is recognized that bacterial growth, condensation, water absorption, corrosion, and photolithographic degradation can occur due to high humidity level. Therefore, since the combination is directed to food packaging in clean room, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the humidity level of the clean room to reduce bacterial growth, condensation, and metal corrosion. Therefore, the prior art process is construed to also reduce condensation thereby minimizing the requirements to wipe the upper peripheral flange, especially since Gildersleeve also desires minimizing condensation effects within a pasteurization tunnel (paragraph 32).
Regarding Claim 40, Hildebrand further teaches wherein a first cavity of the two discrete cavities defines a first annular exterior side surface extending below the upper peripheral flange and a second cavity of the two discrete cavities defines a second annular exterior side surface extending below the upper peripheral flange (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 43, Bakermama further teaches wherein the tray is not heated beyond about 410°F during the baking step (Bakermama bakes at 350°F, see step 1, page 8).
Regarding Claim 45, Spyrou further teaches a formed tray comprising a flexible film sealed to the package comprising information regarding the contents of the baked egg product which constitutes as a label. Spyrou also recites “Ready in 60 seconds” which provides information regarding the reheating instruction of the product stored therein. Spyrou does not specifically provide specific instructions for re-heating the baked egg products. However, since the label of Spyrou already contains indicia to convey certain information to the consumer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include re-heating instructions based on design choice.
Regarding Claim 47, Gildersleeve is further relied on to teach a step of gas flushing the formed tray with nitrogen thereby forming the hermetically sealed modified atmosphere (paragraph 39).
Regarding Claim 49, Belser, which was relied on to modify the container to an oven-safe material, is further relied on to teach a material having a thickness of about 0.0001 to about 0.075 inches (page 13, fourth paragraph), which encompasses the claimed range. Therefore, since Belser is directed to cooking a food product within a CPET material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use known material thickness to sufficiently cook and handle food product within a cooking oven.
Regarding Claims 59 and 60, the claim is rejected for reasons similarly discussed in Claim 39. Bakermama is further relied on to teach wherein the process does not include immersing the blended, raw egg mixture disposed in the two discrete cavities of the formed tray in water.
Claims 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to Claims 39, further in view of Chatterton et al. (WO 2016/148699 A1).
Regarding Claims 42, the combination is silent to wherein the upper peripheral flange includes one or more curvatures at corners thereof and extends downwardly to define a downturned edge of the upper peripheral flange. Chatterton is relied on to teach a formed tray comprising a peripheral flange (upper horizontal flange 101) comprising one or more curvatures at corners thereof and extends downwardly (see 101, 102 of Fig. 2) to define a downturned edge. This in part allows the tray to be endowed with improved rigidity and resistance to deformation and bending (see abstract). Therefore, since the combination is also directed to a form tray having a peripheral flange, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further comprise a downturn edge for the purpose of imparting additional structural rigidity to the formed tray.
Claims 44 and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to Claim 39, further in view of Van Erp et al. (US 2021/0307367).
Regarding Claims 44 and 46, the combination is silent to wherein the step of baking the raw egg mixture in the formed tray occurs in a continuous feed oven with at least two different baking zones having different temperatures. Van Erp is further relied on to teach a two chamber/zone spiral cooking oven having additional heating means for different purposes such as pasteurization, microwave, and impingement (paragraph 90). In this case, the impingement zone with high air temperature helps increase the browning on the surface of the product (paragraph 144). Therefore, since Bakermama desires some degree of browning (tops and edges start to turn golden, step 4, page 8), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a second zone having an impingement browner to provide high heat to the surface for the purpose of browning the baked egg product at a faster rate. The zones of Van Erp are construed to have different temperatures (paragraph 144 recites an impingement zone having “high air temperature”). The modification of Van Erp is construed to meet the limitation of employing an impingement browner as required by Claim 46.
Claim 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to Claim 39, further in view Nambu et al. (US 2017/0355500).
Regarding Claim 48, while Spyrou shows a thermoplastic film sealed to the tray having a peripheral flange, the combination is silent to wherein the step of sealing the baked egg products further comprises sealing a polyethylene-based multi-layer structure to the flange of the formed tray and wherein the polyethylene-based multi-layer structure further comprising an ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVOH) layer. Nambu is relied on to teach known heat-sealable multilayer film for food packaging, comprising polyethylene and EVOH (see paragraph 60) and where EVOH is a known gas barrier layer (paragraph 21).
Therefore, since the combination is directed to hermetically sealed vacuum sealing packages, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use known film materials such as polyethylene based multilayer material comprising EVOH as the film cover to suitably seal the food product within the tray and where the thermoplastic sealing film can provide gas barrier properties to the packaged food.
Claims 50-54, 56-57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakermama (Bacon & Cheese Egg Bites, theBAKERMAMA.com) in view of Spyrou (Costco Has Their Own Version of Egg Bites, And They’re Super Cheap), Timmons et al. (US 4,889,741), Hildebrand (US D215271), Gildersleeve et al. (US 2020/0196646), Belser et al. (WO 2012/049233) and Van Erp et al. (US 2021/0307367).
Regarding Claims 50, 51 and 56, the claim is rejected for reasons discussed in Claims 39 and 44 with respect to the Van Erp reference. Since the Belser reference is also directed to subjecting CPET materials to heat, and the prior art combination discloses similar thermal treatments, there is a reasonable expectation that the formed tray of the prior art would be substantially free from warpage and contamination. Bakermama is further relied on to teach wherein the process does not include immersing the blended, raw egg mixture disposed in the two discrete cavities of the formed tray in water.
Regarding Claim 52, Van Erp further teaches wherein the oven is a continuous feed oven (paragraph 10).
Regarding Claim 53, Spyrou further teaches a formed tray comprising a flexible film sealed to the package comprising information regarding the contents of the baked egg product which constitutes as a label. Spyrou also recites “Ready in 60 seconds” which provides information regarding the reheating instruction of the product stored therein. Spyrou does not specifically provide specific instructions for re-heating the baked egg products. However, since the label of Spyrou already contains indicia to convey certain information to the consumer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include re-heating instructions based on design choice.
Regarding Claim 54, Bakermama further teaches wherein the baking step is controlled to create a browned cand crisped top portion (tops and edges start to turn golden, step 4, page 8).
Regarding Claim 57, Belser, which was relied on to modify the container to an oven-safe material, is further relied on to teach a material having a thickness of about 0.0001 to about 0.075 inches (page 13, fourth paragraph), which encompasses the claimed range. Therefore, since Belser is directed to cooking a food product within a CPET material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use known material thickness to sufficiently cook and handle food product within a cooking oven. Bakermama further teaches wherein the tray is not heated beyond about 410°F during the baking step (Bakermama bakes at 350°F, see step 1, page 8).
Claim 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to Claim 50, further in view of Chatterton et al. (WO 2016/148699 A1).
Regarding Claim 55, the combination is silent to wherein the upper peripheral flange includes one or more curvatures at corners thereof and extends downwardly to define a downturned edge of the upper peripheral flange. Chatterton is relied on to teach a formed tray comprising a peripheral flange (upper horizontal flange 101) comprising one or more curvatures at corners thereof and extends downwardly (see 101, 102 of Fig. 2) to define a downturned edge. This in part allows the tray to be endowed with improved rigidity and resistance to deformation and bending (see abstract). Therefore, since the combination is also directed to a form tray having a peripheral flange, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further comprise a downturn edge for the purpose of imparting additional structural rigidity to the formed tray.
Claims 41, 58, 61, 62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to Claims 39, 50, and 59, further in view of Mathews et al. (US 2014/0272038).
Regarding Claims 41, 58, and 61-62, as discussed in the rejection of Claim 39, the prior art is construed to prevent contamination and condensation on the upper peripheral flange. The combination is silent to wherein the step of cooling includes cooling the two discrete baked egg products within the formed tray until the two discrete baked egg products have a temperature of about 35°F to about 42°F. However, Bakermama discloses a step of refrigerating, which is reasonable to expect a range of temperature overlapping with 35°F to 42°F. In any case, Mathews is relied on to teach an egg-based food product that involves a process of packaging a cooked food product into a container that permits heating and cooling of its contents (see paragraph 43), wherein the cooked food product, if not consumed immediately, is cooled typically to a temperature of 33°F to 40°F, i.e. refrigeration temperatures. Since Mathews is also directed to packaging of a cooked egg-based food product, it would have been obvious to use similar cooling techniques prior to packaging, such as cooling down to refrigeration temperatures, for the purpose of extending the shelf-life of the egg-based food product. Since Gildersleeve also performs a cooling process within a clean room kept at refrigeration temperatures (40°F, paragraph 20), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to similarly allow the cooked egg-based product within a clean room for the purpose of maintaining sanitary operations.
Since Mathew also discloses storing the packaged food product at ~33° to ~40°F (paragraph 44), Mathew further teaches wherein the two discrete baked egg products are not cooled lower than 35°F prior to the sealing step.
Claims 63-64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to Claims 59, further in of view of Chatterton et al. (WO 2016/148699 A1).
Regarding Claim 63, the prior art is construed to teach “wherein the upper peripheral flange is not wiped after the baking step and before the sealing step” as discussed in the rejection of Claim 39. The combination do not specifically recite controlling the depositing step and the baking step to prevent contamination or deformation of the upper peripheral flange. However, since the prior art is directed to a formed tray having a flexible film sealed to the upper peripheral flange (see Spyrou), and is directed to CPET material undergoing heat treatment (see Belser), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a proper surface to properly seal the flexible seal onto the upper peripheral flange. In any case, Chatterton is relied on to teach a formed tray comprising a peripheral flange (upper horizontal flange 101) comprising one or more curvatures at corners thereof and extends downwardly (see 101, 102 of Fig. 2) to define a downturned edge. This in part allows the tray to be endowed with improved rigidity and resistance to deformation and bending (see abstract). Therefore, since the combination is also directed to a form tray having a peripheral flange, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further comprise a downturn edge for the purpose of imparting additional structural rigidity to the formed tray, thereby reducing deformation of the upper peripheral flange.
Regarding Claim 64, Bakermama further teaches wherein the tray is not heated beyond about 410°F during the baking step (Bakermama bakes at 350°F, see step 1, page 8).
Claims 65-67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to Claims 39, further in of view of Van Erp et al. (US 2021/0307367) and Chatterton et al. (WO 2016/148699 A1).
Regarding Claims 65 and 66, the combination is silent to wherein the step of baking the raw egg mixture in the formed tray occurs in a continuous feed oven with at least two different baking zones having different temperatures. Van Erp is further relied on to teach a two chamber/zone spiral cooking oven having additional heating means for different purposes such as pasteurization, microwave, and impingement (paragraph 90). In this case, the impingement zone with high air temperature helps increase the browning on the surface of the product (paragraph 144). Therefore, since Bakermama desires some degree of browning (turn golden, step 4, page 8), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a second zone having an impingement browner to provide high heat to the surface for the purpose of browning. The zones of Van Erp are construed to have different temperatures (paragraph 144 recites an impingement zone having “high air temperature”). As to the limitation of preventing contamination and deformation of the upper peripheral flange, since the prior art is directed to a formed tray having a flexible film sealed to the upper peripheral flange (see Spyrou), and is directed to CPET material undergoing heat treatment (see Belser), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a proper surface to properly seal the flexible seal onto the upper peripheral flange. In any case, Chatterton is relied on to teach a formed tray comprising a peripheral flange (upper horizontal flange 101) comprising one or more curvatures at corners thereof and extends downwardly (see 101, 102 of Fig. 2) to define a downturned edge (also meets the limitation of Claim 66). This in part allows the tray to be endowed with improved rigidity and resistance to deformation and bending (see abstract). Therefore, since the combination is also directed to a form tray having a peripheral flange, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further comprise a downturn edge for the purpose of imparting additional structural rigidity to the formed tray, thereby reducing deformation of the upper peripheral flange. As to preventing contamination, since the prior art discloses similar thermal conditioning as the claimed invention (i.e. similar baking temperatures), the prior art is construed to prevent contamination.
Regarding Claim 67, Bakermama further teaches wherein the tray is not heated beyond about 410°F during the baking step (Bakermama bakes at 350°F, see step 1, page 8). Belser, which was relied on to modify the container to an oven-safe material, is further relied on to teach a material having a thickness of about 0.0001 to about 0.075 inches (page 13, fourth paragraph), which encompasses the claimed range. Therefore, since Belser is directed to cooking a food product within a CPET material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use known material thickness to sufficiently cook and handle food product within a cooking oven.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument in the response filed 26 Nov 2025 has been considered, but is rendered moot in view of the new grounds of rejections.
That is, all arguments directed to the Leah reference (section A.1) is rendered moot because Leah is not relied on in this Office Action.
As to section A.2., Applicant argued that the prior art do not teach or suggest a process of baking, cooking, and hermetically sealing an egg product all within the same formed tray. That is, Applicant argued that Leah (presumably applicable to the Bakermama reference) do not teach a process in which a formed tray formed of CPET material is used to both bake and hermetically package egg products, Spyrou fails to disclose or suggest a process in which a formed tray is used to both bake and hermetically package egg products, Belser does not describe hermetically sealing a food product at the flange of a tray, and Timmons fails to teach a formed tray that bakes at the claimed temperature and hermetically packaging an egg product. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). That is, Applicant has pointed to all the limitations that each references do not teach or suggest when the rejection is made as a combination. Furthermore, Applicant argued that Timmons do not teach or suggest a cook-in package can be used for baking egg products at baking temperatures; however, Belser is relied on to provide the material that are known to bake eggs at baking temperatures. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the Bakermama reference which uses a method of baking, would look to Belser to employ suitable plastic materials known for baking eggs. While Belser is directed to a planar sheet, the teachings of Belser suggest that CPET materials are clearly suitable for baking egg products. Timmons is provided to show that as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider a package that is suitable for both cooking and packaging egg products therein and therefore would combine the references of Bakermama, Spyrou, and Belser to achieve a package that can bake an egg product therein as well as hermetically seal for commercial purposes.
As to the Gildersleeve reference, Applicant’s argues that Gildersleeve does not remedy the deficiency of Timmons and the other cited reference because Gildersleeve teaches freezing a cooked egg product so that it can be transferred to its final packaging. The argument is not persuasive because Gildersleeve is merely relied on to teach a clean room for providing a modified atmosphere thereby increasing the shelf-life of a packaged food product. That is, regardless of whether the food product is packaged in the same or different vessel it is cooked in, both would benefit from Gildersleeve’s suggestion of using a nitrogen gas flush to provide a modified atmosphere when the package is sealed. As discussed above, the combination of Bakermama, Hildebrand, Timmons, Spyrou, and Belser are relied on to teach the claimed formed tray made of CPET material and the process of depositing, baking, and packaging a baked egg product within said formed tray made of CPET.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the Office Action has not provided a reason to have the recited cooling step prior to sealing, the argument is not persuasive because the Mathew reference discloses a process of cooling prior to sealing. That is, Mathew recites “[p]referably, food product 10 is cooled when cooking is complete” (paragraph 43) and that the food, if not consumed immediately, is “cooled and packaged” (paragraph 45) thereby suggesting an order to the steps. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have followed known industry processes for packaging cooked egg products such as cooling the egg product prior to sealing the egg product.
As to Section 1.B with respect to Claim 50, the arguments are rendered moot in view of the new grounds of rejections because Leah is no longer being relied on.
As to Section 2, the arguments are found not persuasive in view of the responses above.
As to Section 3, Applicant argues that the proposed references fail to disclose or suggest the recited baking step. Specifically, the claimed invention has a baking process that is controlled to ensure that the flange of the CPET tray maintains an adequately linear sealing surface. The argument is not persuasive because the claimed invention recites the thermal conditions of a formed tray reaching 300°F to about 330°F at one point during the baking step (Claim 39), and does not exceed 410°F (Claim 43). This is met by the prior art because the prior art provides a baking temperature of 350°F which implies that at least one point the tray will reach 300°F to 330°F and will not exceed 410°F. Therefore, the formed tray taught by the prior art would be expected to perform similarly to the claimed invention and not undergo deformation or contamination. In response to Applicant’s argument that Leah (or similarly Bakermama) would not looking into a dual temperature zone taught by Van Erp for baking since Leah (and Bakermama) can achieve the browning in a conventional oven, the argument is not persuasive because Van Erp provides an impingement zone with high air temperature directed with high speed (paragraph 144) which allows quicker browning. Furthermore, even if a single baking zone achieves similar browning, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose (See 2144.06.II). In response to Applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look into the Van Erp reference due to Van Erp being directed to cooking meat, the argument is not persuasive because Van Erp is generic to edible substances for human consumption, particularly protein containing food substance (paragraph 7). While the exampled embodiments are particular to meat, it is submitted that providing a conveyor multi-baking zone that performs heating, cooking, dry disinfecting, pasteurizing and/or sterilizing, would be applicable to any type of food for commercial packaging.
As to Section C.1 and C.2 with respect to Claim 59, the arguments are not persuasive in view of the responses above.
As to Section C.3, Applicant argues that none of the cited references discloses a clean room that prevents condensation on the upper peripheral flange. The argument is not persuasive because both Gildersleeve and Angstrom has been relied on to teach a clean room where it is suggested by the Angstrom reference to control the humidity level of the clean room to reduce bacterial growth, condensation, and metal corrosion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0346. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached on 571-270-3475. 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.
/T.H.N/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights