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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in line 5 delete “to the enclosure” since the limitation is redundant.
In lines 19-20, delete “a first side of the two sides and the female part is attached to a second” and insert “one of the two sides and the female part is attached to the other”. The amendment should be made in view of the amendment in line 4 to recite “two sides affixed to one another…” and to place the claim in better form.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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, 4, 9-11 and 13-19 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, in lines 12-14 the limitation “wherein the one or more non-transfer material pieces and the one or more transfer materials along the common plane on the at least one side each contact the object” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the “object” is encompassed by the “contacting interfacing conductive receptacle” as claimed. Line 3 recites “a housing sized to hold an object comprising water.” When given its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation simply indicates the housing is configured (i.e., sized) to hold an object, not that the object is present within the housing. Since the claim does not positively recite an “object” within the housing, it is unclear how the transfer and non-transfer material pieces would “each contact the object.”
In lines 23-24, the limitation “the size of the housing is dependent on the size of the object to ensure the object fits within the housing” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if “the object” is required to be present within the housing as stated above. It is further unclear if the limitation in question means the size of the housing is adjustable (to accommodate the object) after the entire receptacle is manufactured, or if the housing is manufactured with a set size based on an object intended to be held therein. Furthermore, line 3 already recites “a housing sized to hold an object comprising water” and therefore it is unclear if the limitations of line 3 and lines 23-24, respectively, encompass the same or different subject matter.
Regarding claim 4, in line 3 the limitation “the feedback device” lacks antecedent basis since the respective limitation was removed from claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “interfaces with a magnet” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the magnet is a part of the contact interfacing conductive receptacle, and therefore required by the claim. Claim 1 line 15 recites the transfer material pieces are “configured to remotely interface with an electrode or conductive material.” It is unclear if claim 13 should be interpreted to mean the transfer pieces interface “locally” with the magnet and therefore the magnet is a part of the conductive receptacle, or interfaces “remotely” such that the magnet is not required by the receptacle.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “the object is cooled” renders the claim indefinite for the same reasons stated for claim 1. Neither claims 1 nor 15 clearly indicate whether an “object” is required to be present within the contact interfacing conductive receptacle. It is similarly unclear if the “object” is required by claim 15.
In lines 2-3, the limitation “temperature range comprising -1oC to -20oC” renders the claim indefinite since the term “comprising” indicates the temperature range is open-ended. It is therefore unclear if the temperature range is limited to the values following “comprising”. The rejection may be overcome by amending the term “comprising” to instead recite the term “of”.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “a field applied to the housing” renders the claim indefinite since the context of “a field” is ambiguous, and therefore it is unclear what kind of “field” is referred to by the claim. The rejection may be overcome by specifying the type of “field” (e.g., such as those recited by claim 17).
In line 3, the limitations “the water in the object” and “when the object is in the temperature range” render the claim indefinite for the same reasons stated for “the object” in claims 1 and 15 above.
Regarding claim 17, in lines 3-4 the limitation “magnetic current” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what the limitation means. The specification does not provide further detail for interpretation.
Claims 9-11, 14 and 18-19 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 9-11 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korr (US 3,230,861) in view of Richman (US 2,939,793) and Lin (US 2004/0069157 A1).
The limitation “transfer material pieces” is interpreted in view of the specification to comprise an electrode or conductive material, including metals (page 10 lines 29-31). The limitation “non-transfer material pieces each comprising infinite impedance” is interpreted to comprise non-conducting or insulating materials, including plastic (page 11 lines 2-5).
Regarding claim 1, Korr teaches a food container 14 having conductive material therein for connecting food within the container to a suitable source of electrical current (figure 1; column 1 lines 27-31), the container comprising a housing formed by walls (sides) 18, 20, 26 and 28 and configured to hold a food object H comprising water, the sides made from a non-conductive material such as plastic (figures 103; column 2 lines 19-23 and 50-55), wherein the sides comprise transfer material pieces 62 and 64 configured to provide conductivity to the food and positioned adjacent to the non-conductive material of the housing (column 2 lines 21-30; 60 to column 3 line 7). The transfer material pieces can be made from aluminum foil (column 2 lines 12-15). The non-transfer and transfer material pieces are configured to contact the object while the one or more transfer material pieces are configured to remotely interface with a separately located electrode or conductive material such as electrodes 66 and 68, which supply electricity through wires 70 and 72 (figures 3 and 6; column 2 lines 24-30; column 3 lines 8-21). The housing is construed to read on “two sides affixed to one [another] forming an enclosure with an opening to the enclosure” since the housing comprises two sides 26 and 28 affixed to one another via bottom wall 16 and side walls 18 and 20 with an upwardly facing opening to form the enclosure (figures 1-4).
Since the non-conductive material of Korr would have naturally resisted current flow therethrough, and since plastic is disclosed in Applicant’s specification to be a type of material having “infinite impedance”, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the plastic taught by Korr to exhibit “infinite impedance”. See also In re Papesch, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding the transfer and non-transfer material pieces “located side by side, along a common plane of the at least one side of the two sides,” the limitation is given its broadest reasonable interpretation to mean the respective transfer and non-transfer pieces are located adjacent (“side by side”) to each other, in any orientation, with their major surfaces extending along the same plane as that of the “at least one side”. The transfer and non-transfer material pieces of Korr are construed to read on the above limitation since the foil panel of electrode 62 is located “side by side” with the surface of wall 26 and the major surfaces of both the electrode and wall extend along the same plane (figure 3).
Korr does not teach the transfer and non-transfer material pieces “each contact the object.” However, the limitation is directed to the intended use of the receptacle.
Regardless, Korr teaches an embodiment e.g., for soup S (figure 6), where the conducting panel 108 does not cover the entire inside surface of the container wall (column 3 lines 10-22). Therefore, the both the foil and container material are configured to contact the soup.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the package of Korr such that the electrode does not cover the entire inner surface of the wall based on the type of food contained and to reduce material cost by optimizing the aluminum panel to a minimum required size.
Korr does not teach the housing comprising two sides and a closure comprising male and female parts, the male part attached to one side and the female part attached to the other side to removably seal the two sides together.
Richman teaches a package unit for an object comprising water (column 1 lines 15-17), where the package comprises a non-transfer material piece comprising infinite impedance such as non-conducting plastic strip 22 attached “side by side” in a “common plane” as the two transfer material pieces such as aluminum foil strips 18 and 20 (figure 2; column 2 lines 5-14). The strips 18 and 20 are adhered to strip 22 by adhesive or any other means known to the art (column 2 lines 16-19). The aluminum strips are configured to interface with electrodes 28 and 30 affixed to a separate device (figure 4; column 2 lines 69-71; column 3 lines 3-8) and the packaging unit includes a closure comprising adhesive attached to foil strips 18 and 20 to removably seal the sides together (column 2 lines 61-65).
Lin teaches a microwavable zipper bag for food packaging (abstract) comprising bag 110 formed by attaching two sides 104 and 106 of film and having zipper 40 consisting of male and female parts on each side (figures 5-6; paragraphs 44-45), where the bag is reuseable (paragraph 49).
Since Korr teaches forming the electrode by exposing aluminum foil through an opening 34 formed into the wall 26 (figure 1; column 1 lines 70-72), and since Richman teaches flexible plastic films can be adhered to aluminum foil to form a food packaging, the cited prior art suggests to one of ordinary skill that the electrode structure of Korr can be applied to plastic bags. This is particularly since Korr teaches the plastic material can be polyethylene (column 2 lines 54-55), which is also taught by Richman (column 2 lines 11-13) and Lin (paragraph 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the package of Korr to be a bag comprising two sides and a closure comprising male and female parts as claimed since the reference states the disclosed embodiments are non-limiting (column 1 lines 38-39 and column 3 lines 27-29), since the prior art recognizes food packages made from flexible non-conducting plastic attached to conducting material, since Richman teaches the packaging can be “sealed or closed…by other means readily understood by one skilled in the art” (column 2 lines 62-64), where zipper closures are known in the art, and to provide a resealable closure to allow for reuse of the bag.
Regarding the size of the housing being dependent on the size of the object to ensure the object fits within the housing, the container of Korr can have different sizes and shapes depending on the food to be contained, where the electrodes necessarily have a size dependent on the container (figures 3-4 and 6). Thus, the sizes of the non-transfer and transfer material pieces of Korr are construed to read on the limitation.
Regarding claim 4, “the feedback device” lacks antecedent basis as stated above. The receptacle of Korr would have been capable of performing the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 9, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches a bag.
Regarding claim 10, Korr teaches two transfer material pieces 62 and 64 on opposing sides of the container, and the combination applied to claim 1 modifies the container to be a bag formed by attaching two sides. The modification would result in the bag comprising one transfer material piece on one side and another piece on the other side.
Regarding claim 11, the combination applied to claim 1 would have resulted in each of the transfer pieces located on opposing walls as stated for claim 10. The pieces would have necessarily had the same or differing configurations.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “interfaces with a magnet” is construed to be an intended use of the receptacle. The transfer material pieces of Korr are capable of interfacing with an electrode of a separate device as stated for claim 1, and therefore would have been similarly capable of interfacing with a magnet.
Regarding claim 14, transfer material pieces have the same shape as each other (figures 2-4), and the non-transfer pieces have different shapes than the transfer material pieces (figures 2-5).
Regarding claims 15-17, the recited limitations are all directed to intended use of the claimed conductive receptacle and therefore not given patentable weight. The combination applied to claim 1 renders obvious the structural features of the conductive receptacle. Absent evidence to the contrary, one of ordinary skill would have expected the receptacle of the prior art combination to be capable of having “a field applied to the housing” such that it “creates agitation or energization to prevent nucleation when the object is in the temperature range” and capable of being cooled since it is made of materials generally understood to have cold stability (plastics and metals).
Regarding claim 18, the transfer material pieces are the same shape (figures 2-4).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korr in view of Richman and Lin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Keefer (US 4,888,459).
Regarding claim 19, Korr does not teach the pieces of transfer material comprise different shapes.
Keefer teaches a multi-compartment container for heating several different food items simultaneously (column 1 lines 45-46), the container comprising compartments denoted by regions 50, 52, 54, 56 and 58 and a lid (figure 7; column 14 lines 63-67), the lid itself made from microwave transparent material such as plastic (column 10 lines 33-34; column 14 line 67 to column 15 line 1). The lid comprises areas of metallic foil 60, 62, 64 and 66 that are dimensioned to provide proper cooking energy and distribution to the food stuff located in the respective compartments (column 15 lines 1-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the package of Korr to include multiple compartments and differently shaped pieces of transfer material for said compartments since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and therefore in order to simultaneously accommodate and treat different types of foods based on the particular characteristics of the food e.g., the transfer material pieces can be sized and/or shaped to better match the size/shape of a specific food in a specific compartment, thereby ensuring proper contact and electrical conduction between the pieces and the food.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments against the rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and the combination of Richman and Lin have been fully considered but the amendments to claim 1 necessitated new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s arguments against Jun and Italpres have been fully considered but the references are no longer relied upon
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Korr teaches placing a conductive panel over each end wall and therefore fails to teach the transfer and non-transfer material pieces “side by side, along a common plane of the at least one side.”
This is not persuasive since the limitation “along a common plane” when given its broadest reasonable interpretation does not exclude the overlapping structure taught by Korr. One of ordinary skill would consider the “side by side” panel and wall to share a common plane.
Applicant's argument against the combination of Korr and Keefer is not persuasive for the same reasons stated above. Korr already teaches the features of claim 1, and Keefer is relied on to show that the shape of metallic portions in a food container can be varied based on factors such as energy distribution based on characteristics of the contained food.
Applicant’s argument against the dependent claims is not persuasive for the same reason 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
