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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/23/2026 has been entered.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7-11, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the reactive strap is capable of being microwaved without causing overheating or causing damage to the first package member” renders the claim indefinite since the boundary of the conditions under which the reactive strap is microwaved without “overheating” and “damage” is ambiguous e.g., microwave power, duration of heating, material of the first packaging member, etc. It is also unclear what temperature value(s) are encompassed by “overheating” and what structural feature(s) constitute “damage.” Since the claim is directed to a product, the structure imparted by the limitation in question is unclear.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “the reactive strap is capable of being microwaved without causing overheating or causing damage to the first package member” renders the claim indefinite for the same reasons stated for claim 1.
Claims 5, 7-10, 15 and 17-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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, 5, 7-11, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkinson (US 2013/0206846 A1) in view of Simpson et al. (US 6,261,616 B1), Heit et al. (US 2014/0263640 A1) and Keller et al. (US 10,268,945 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Wilkinson teaches RFID devices (abstract), the device including an RFID tag comprising near field only RFID tag 200, far field antenna 302, and item 408 (figure 4B). The near field only RFID tag 200 comprises a chip 204 with a circular loop 202 to “assist in the generation of current from being magnetically coupled to a tag antenna” (figure 2B; paragraph 55), where such a structure is known in the art to comprise a “conductive ring”. RFID tag 200 is construed to be a “reactive strap”. The tag 200 is “designed for use only in the near field” and “later coupled to a separate…far field antenna” (paragraph 55). The near field only tag 200 and item 408 are coupled together without the far field antenna 302 to form integrated unit 412 e.g., “RFID tag 200 is implemented within the item or its packaging” (paragraph 74). The integrated unit 412 includes a location or other coupling structure adapted to receive the far field antenna 302 e.g., “the far field antenna 302 is applied as a sticker to an exterior surface of the unit 412 that is proximate to the near field only RFID tag 200 such that the far field antenna 302 will be aligned as intended with the near field only RFID tag 200 to ensure good proximity coupling” (paragraph 74). Removal of the far field antenna 302 from the vicinity of RFID tag 200 e.g., by removing coupler 512 comprising antenna 302, results in “the far field antenna being magnetically decoupled from the near field only RFID tag such that the remaining RFID tagged item will only function as a near field tag” (figure 5; paragraph 81). The package to which the RFID tag 200 is attached is construed to be the “first package member”, and the coupler/sticker 512 is construed to be the “second package member”. The first packaging member can be a cardboard box (paragraph 74), understood in the art to be microwavable. The tag 200 is construed to be “capable of being microwaved without causing overheating or causing damage to the first package member” since the limitation encompasses very short durations of microwaving e.g., 0.1 seconds, and one of ordinary skill would not have expected “overheating” or “damage.”
Thus, the reference teaches “a reactive strap associated with the first package member, wherein the reactive strap comprises an RFID chip coupled to a conductive ring, and the reactive strap is secured to a predefined surface of the first package member to enable coupling and decoupling from a far-field antenna associated with the second package member and separate from the reactive strap, wherein the reactive strap is configured to be coupled to the far-field antenna when the second package member is associated with the first package member, the reactive strap is configured to be decoupled from the far-field antenna when the second package member is dissociated from the first package member, the RFID tag is capable of far-field communication when the reactive strap is coupled to the far-field antenna, and the reactive strap is capable of only near-field communication when the reactive strap is decoupled from the far-field antenna”, and “the second package member associated with the first package member and configured to be dissociated from the first package member prior to microwaving the first package member.”
Wilkinson does not teach the first package member comprises a tray receiving at least a portion of a microwavable food item, wherein the second package member comprises an enclosure receiving at least a portion of the first package member when the second package member is associated with the first package member.
Simpson et al. teaches a microwavable food packaging system comprising a tray 12 and a sleeve 14 surrounding the tray (abstract; figure 1), where the tray contains microwavable food and is therefore construed to be the first package member, and the sleeve is construed to be the second package member comprising an enclosure receiving at least a portion of the first package member when associated with the first package member. The second package member (sleeve) 14 is removed from the tray prior to microwaving (figures 11-14; column 5 lines 49-52). The sleeve can include printed indicia or other information (column 4 lines 31-40), which suggests that the sleeve is intended to convey information to the user.
Heit et al. teaches information printed on or otherwise associated with food packaging (abstract), the information including “tags such as RFID tags or near field communication device” (paragraph 5), where the food is intended to be cooked in a microwave (paragraph 27). The device 3 includes encoded information that is readable by an associated cooking apparatus and/or allows communication of information between devices (paragraphs 23-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the packaging of Wilkinson such that the first package member comprises a tray receiving at least a portion of a microwavable food item, wherein the second package member comprises an enclosure receiving at least a portion of the first package member when the second package member is associated with the first package member since the prior art recognizes a tray/sleeve type structure for food packaging, where RFID and near field communication devices can be placed onto the packaging to communicate information to the user, and to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Wilkinson does not teach the far-field antenna being configured to fracture when microwaved.
Keller et al. teaches RFID tags configured to fracture when heated, where the tags include materials that expand when heated for the purpose of stressing metal antenna traces of the tags to fracture, thus lessening the risk of arcing from microwaving (abstract). The tag can be used with a food container (column 3 lines 33-63) and the material that expands when heated can be a thermoplastic (column 4 lines 30-35). It is noted that the technique of Keller et al. is the same as that disclosed by Applicant (paragraph 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the far-field antenna of Wilkinson to be configured to fracture when microwaved since the reference does not particularly limit the coupler/sticker 512 material and includes plastics (paragraph 81), since the prior art recognizes the feature for the same purpose of minimizing arcing risk, where one of ordinary skill understands potential user error includes forgetting to remove the far-field antenna from the packaging before microwaving, and therefore to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, see MPEP 2143 I.(C).
Regarding claim 5, Wilkinson teaches far field antennas are known in the art to comprise dipole antennas (paragraphs 50 and 54), where the selection of such an antenna would have been obvious based on desired characteristics and performance of said antenna.
Regarding claims 7-8, Wilkinson teaches the reactive strap (RFID tag) and far field antenna can be located at various points 1102, 1104, 1202, 1302, 1304, and 1306 on a packaging, provided that the two are coupled (figures 11-13; paragraph 91).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the package of Wilkinson to secure the reactive strap to the side or base surface of the first package member since the reference does not particularly limit the location, as a matter of manufacturing preference and/or ease of access for an RFID reader, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and therefore as a matter of preferred configuration, see MPEP 2144.04 IV.B. and VI.C.
Regarding claims 9-10, Wilkinson teaches the far field antenna can be placed at various locations on the packaging (paragraph 91), where the far field antenna can be “implemented within the item or its packaging”, provided that the antenna can be coupled to the RFID tag (paragraph 74).
The combination applied to claim 1 teaches the far field antenna secured to the second package member (sleeve) such that the antenna can be decoupled and removed from the proximity of the RFID tag on the first package member prior to microwave heating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to secure the far field antenna to an inner or outer surface of the second package member since Wilkinson does not limit the structure and location thereof, for the same reasons stated for claims 7-8 above, and in order to facilitate coupling and decoupling of the far field antenna from the RFID tag, thereby preventing arcing during microwaving as stated for claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches a packaging for a microwavable food item as stated for said claim. The same combination is applied to claim 11, and would have been obvious for the same reasons.
The combination teaches associating the food item to a first package member tray including the reactive strap (near field only RFID tag), associating the second package member (sleeve) with the far field antenna, and associating the first package member with the second package member to define an overall RFID tag capable of far field communication. The second package member comprising the far field antenna can be removed from association with the first package member, where decoupling the far field antenna from the RFID tag causes said tag to be capable of only near field communication as taught by Wilkinson (paragraph 74). The far-field antenna is configured to fracture when microwaved as taught by Keller et al. The near field only RFID tag is readable (communicating), using a known reader 106, in the near field up to about 15 cm, whereas the tag in combination with the far field antenna is readable from 20-30 ft or more away (paragraphs 48-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Wilkinson to communicate, using a known communication device, with the reactive strap via near-field communication, and with the RFID tag via far field communication, in order to convey relevant information (e.g., food type, tracking information, manufacture date, etc.) throughout various parts of the process, thereby allowing appropriate tracking and confirmation (e.g., ensuring the packaging indicia/cover is correctly associated with the food product therein) by both the retailer and the user. Further, the user can remove the sleeve and associated far field antenna for minimizing arcing during microwaving, and read (communicate) with the near field only RFID tag on the tray prior to cooking as a final confirmation of the correct food and/or to communicate heating instructions to the microwave for automated cooking.
Regarding claim 15, Wilkinson teaches far field antennas are known in the art to comprise dipole antennas (paragraphs 50 and 54), where the selection of such an antenna would have been obvious based on desired characteristics and performance of said antenna.
Regarding claims 17-20, the combination applied to claims 7-10 teaches the features of the respective claims. The same combinations are applied to claims 17-20 and would have been obvious for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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).
Applicant argues the decoupling in Wilkinson is directed to the problem of design and selection, and fails to teach the first package member comprises a tray receiving at least a portion of the food and the far-field antenna being configured to fracture when microwaved. Applicant argues Examiner fails to provide a reasoned, articulated explanation as to why one of ordinary skill would combine the cited references.
This is not persuasive since Wilkinson teaches a first packaging member such as a cardboard box (known to be microwavable) comprising the reactive strap and a second packaging member comprising a metal far-field antenna that is removably attached to the first packaging member proximate the reactive strap. Simpson is relied on to show that microwavable packaging comprises a first packaging member for holding the food to be microwaved and a second packaging member configured to be removed from the first packaging member prior to microwaving, where communication information can be placed onto the removable second member. Heit is relied on to show that microwavable food packaging can include RFID tags i.e., communication information. The prior cited art therefore suggests to one of ordinary skill that microwavable food packaging can include portions that are configured to be removed prior to microwaving, and that it is desirable to do so to prevent unwanted arcing. The claims are directed to a product, where the packaging of Wilkinson is capable of being used in the argued manner, and one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the packaging with food products for the known advantages of RFID tags (e.g., information communication and traceability). Since Wilkinson teaches the far-field antenna of the second packaging member is made of metal (paragraph 60), one of ordinary skill would have also been motivated to place the metal far-field antenna on a removable second packaging member to similarly prevent arcing during microwave heating of the food containing first packaging member.
Applicant argues Simpson teaches information that is readable by a person, not a machine, and the Office takes an overbroad reading of Simpson to include other information, where the information on the sleeve is removed.
This is not persuasive since the reference is cited in combination with Heit as stated above, which suggests to one of ordinary skill that information communicating features include RFID tags. The cited references suggest that food packaging can include an RFID tag having a far-field antenna (e.g., for easier scanning/reading), where the far-field antenna is connected to a packaging member configured to be removed prior to microwaving.
Applicant argues Heit teaches an RFID tag that is read prior to being inserted into the cooking apparatus and that is subsequently removed, and the Office does not provide a reason as to why one of ordinary skill would combine with Wilkinson.
This is not persuasive since Heit is relied on to show that food packaging is recognized by the prior art to include RFID tags, where one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the removable far-field antenna of Wilkinson for the reasons stated for claim 1.
Applicant’s argument against Boehrer has been considered but the reference is no longer relied upon.
Applicant argues Keller teaches RFID tags continue to perform signaling operations after fracturing, and the Office does not provide a reason as to why one of ordinary skill would combine with Wilkinson.
This is not persuasive since the reference teaches configuring the RFID tag to fracture during microwaving for the same advantage of preventing arcing, regardless of whether or not the tag continues to operate after the fracture. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to configure the tag of Wilkinson to fracture for the same reason.
Applicant's arguments against the dependent claims are not persuasive for the same reasons stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0338. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6.
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.
/BRYAN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
