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 Objections
Claims 1, 7-8, 10-11, and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in line 19 after “male and female parts” delete “each attached to one” and insert “, wherein the male part is attached to a first side of the two or more sides and the female part is attached to a second side” in order to place the claim in better form, and to better reflect the structure recited in the specification (page 10 lines 23-25).
In line 20, after “removably seal the” delete “two” and insert “first and second” to correspond to the amendment above.
Regarding claim 7, delete “the one or more non-transfer material pieces and” since the limitation is redundant.
Regarding claim 8, in line 2 after “wherein” delete “the non-transfer and transfer material pieces on the at least one side of the box shape housing and a different side of the box shape housing” and amend to instead recite “a first transfer material piece and a non-transfer material piece are located on one side of the housing and a second transfer material piece and a non-transfer material piece are located on a different side of the housing, wherein the first and second transfer material pieces”. The amendment should be made to place the claim as a whole in better form, and for consistency with the language of preceding claims.
Regarding claim 10, delete “the one or more non-transfer material pieces and” since the limitation is redundant.
Regarding claim 11, in line 2 after “wherein” delete “the non-transfer and transfer material pieces of the sides of the bag housing” and amend to instead recite “a first transfer material piece and a non-transfer material piece are located on one side of the housing and a second transfer material piece and a non-transfer material piece are located on a different side of the housing, wherein the first and second transfer material pieces” for the same reason stated for claim 8.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, in line 2 of each claim before “pieces of transfer material” insert “one or more” for consistency with the language of claim 1 and to place the claims 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, 4-11, and 13-20 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, in line 8 the limitation “elastic or stretchy” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear how the two differ, and what characteristics are encompassed by the respective terms. The specification does not provide clarification, reciting only “the transfer material can be elastic or stretchy to conform to the food item…” (page 11 lines 6-7). It is unclear what materials are encompassed by the individual terms, and if there is overlap.
In lines 10-13, the limitation “wherein the one or more non-transfer material pieces and the one or more transfer materials on the at least one side each contact the object” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the contact interfacing conductive receptacle as currently drafted actually requires an object to be present. Line 3 recites “a housing sized to hold an object comprising water”, but does not positively recite the object is actually within the housing. Therefore, it is unclear if the receptacle as claimed encompasses an object present within the housing and contacting the material pieces, or if the “receptacle” as claimed does not encompass the object and is simply configured to perform the limitation in question.
In line 22, the limitation “the two or more transfer material pieces” lacks antecedent basis. Line 7 is amended to currently recite “one or more transfer material pieces”. The rejection can be overcome by deleting “two” and inserting “one”.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “transfer material pieces are in contact with the object” renders the claim indefinite since claim 1 as currently amended recites “one or more transfer material pieces”. It is unclear if “transfer material pieces” requires a minimum of “one” as recited by claim 1, or a minimum of “two” pieces. The claim is rendered further indefinite since it is unclear if claim 1 as currently amended actually requires an object to the present within the housing as stated above. See also the rejection under 35 USC 112(d) below.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, in line 2 of each claim the limitation “the field” lacks antecedent basis. The limitation was removed from amended claim 1.
Claims 4, 6-11, 13-15, and 18-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The claim does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1. The limitation “the transfer material pieces” is interpreted to refer to the “one or more transfer material pieces” of claim 1. Lines 11-13 of claim 1 recite the feature recited by claim 5.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korr (US 3,230,861). Italpres NPL and Jun et al. (US 2016/0302457 A1) are relied on as evidence for claim 1.
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 74 having conductive material therein for connecting food within the container to a suitable source of electrical current (figure 4; column 1 lines 27-31), the container comprising a housing to hold the food object comprising water, the housing comprising two or more sides and made of a non-conductive material such as plastic (figures 3 and 6; column 2 lines 19-23 and 50-55), wherein the sides comprise transfer material pieces 62 and 64 or 90 and 92 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 panels (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 interface with an electrode or conductive material affixed in a separate device, 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 separate device being a “feedback” device is an intended use of the claimed receptacle, where the transfer material pieces of Korr are configured to, and capable of interfacing with an electrode of a “feedback” device.
For example, Jun et al. is relied on as evidence to show an apparatus for supercooling perishable products including a pulsed electric field generator and an oscillating magnetic field generator (abstract), where the fields suppress nucleation of ice crystals (paragraph 38), the apparatus including a removable container 2 having electrodes 8-10 which contact the product (figures 3A-B; paragraphs 73-74) and interface with transformer 17 to provide the PEF (figure 5; paragraph 76). The apparatus comprises variable temperature control (paragraphs 61-62 and 76) and is therefore a “feedback device”. The conductive receptacle of Korr would have been capable of “interfacing” with the device of Jun et al.
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 “one or more transfer material pieces each comprising elastic or stretchy conductive material”, Korr teaches aluminum foil panels as stated above. Italpres NPL is relied on as evidence to show that aluminum is an elastic material (page 2 “the elastic properties of aluminum”). Therefore, the aluminum foil panels of Korr are construed to be “transfer material pieces each comprising elastic conductive material”.
Regarding “a closure comprising male and female parts each attached to one of the two or more sides to removably seal the two sides together”, Applicant’s specification discloses an embodiment of the claimed receptacle as a box, where the closure mechanism includes “the top…taken off” (page 11 lines 20-21 and 28-30). The limitation in question is construed to include the above feature and encompass any structure capable of performing the same function. Korr teaches a removable non-conductive cover 12 or 98 seated on the peripheral wall of the container to close the food cavity (figures 1, 3 and 6; claim 2). The cover is construed to be a “female” part which receives the “male” part of the peripheral wall, and “attached to one of the two or more sides to removably seal the two sides together” since the cover encloses all four sidewalls to form a seal between them by way of the cover surface. The attachment occurs on the “side” of the box comprising the removable cover.
Regarding the size of the non-transfer and transfer material pieces being dependent on the size of the object in the housing, the limitation is interpreted in view of the specification to mean the non-transfer and transfer material pieces can configured such that the receptacle has a desired size and shape (column 9 lines 19-30). The container of Korr can have different sizes and shapes depending on the food to be contained (figures 3-4 and 6), where the electrodes necessarily have a size dependent on the container. Thus, the sizes of the non-transfer and transfer material pieces of Korr are construed to be “dependent on the size of the object to ensure the object fits within the housing”.
Regarding claim 4, the recited language is directed to a preferred method of using the claimed receptacle. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Korr teaches a housing comprising non-transfer material and transfer material pieces as recited for claim 1. The housing would have been capable of being placed within a supercooling device as evidenced by Jun et al. in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the material transfer pieces are in contact with the object (figure 3; column 2 lines 21-29).
Regarding claim 6, Korr teaches a box as stated for claim 1 (figures 2-4).
Regarding claim 7, the box shape comprises the one or more non-transfer material pieces and two of the transfer material pieces as stated for claim 1 (figures 2-4).
Regarding claim 8, the non-transfer and transfer material pieces of the sides of the box shaped housing are arranged in a same configuration (figures 2-4).
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 claims recite preferred methods of use. The housing of Korr is capable of providing a “field” and “creating agitation or energization to prevent nucleation” for the reasons stated for claims 1-2, 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).
Regarding claim 20, the box of Korr comprises a cover to removably seal the sides together as stated for claim 1. Removing the cover would have necessarily formed an opening in the housing.
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.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korr as applied to claim 1 above, and 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.
Claims 1 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richman (US 2,939,793) in view of Lin (US 2004/0069157 A1). Italpres NPL and Jun et al. are relied on as evidence for claim 1.
It is noted that the interpretations of the claim limitations applied in the rejection under Korr above are similarly applied to Richman.
Regarding claim 1, Richman teaches a package unit for an object comprising water (column 1 lines 15-17), where the package comprises a housing having two sides (figure 2), at least one of the sides comprising a non-transfer material piece comprising infinite impedance such as non-conducting plastic strip 22, two transfer material pieces such as aluminum foil strips 18 and 20 configured to provide conductivity and positioned adjacent to the non-transfer material piece 22 forming the housing in which the object is placed, the non-transfer and transfer material pieces adjacent to one another (figures 1 and 4; column 2 lines 5-14), the non-transfer material and transfer material pieces contacting the object while the transfer material pieces 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 a closure comprising adhesive attached to two of the sides i.e., to foil strips 18 and 20 to removably seal the sides together (column 2 lines 61-65). Aluminum foil is an elastic material as evidence by Italpres NPL, and the conductive receptacle of Korr would have been capable of “interfacing” with a feedback device such as that of Jun et al. The size of the non-transfer material and transfer material pieces are necessarily dependent on the size of the object in the housing as explained for Korr above.
Richman does not teach the closure comprising male and female parts.
Lin teaches a microwavable zipper bag for food packaging (abstract) comprising zipper 40 consisting of male and female parts on each side of film 102 (figure 5; paragraph 45), where the bag is reuseable (paragraph 49).
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 Richman to include a zipper closure having male and female parts attached as claimed since the reference teaches the package is “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 claim 9, Richman teaches a wrapper for holding the food product (figures 1-2 and 4; column 2 lines 56-59), the wrapper construed to be a type of bag.
Regarding claim 10, Richman teaches the bag comprises a non-transfer piece 22 and two transfer pieces 18 and 20 as stated for claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Richman teaches the non-transfer and transfer material pieces are arranged in the same configuration since they are symmetrical.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 necessitated new grounds of rejection with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(1) to Richman. Claim 1 (and 9-11) is now rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Richman in view Lin.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Korr teaches cooking or heating food in a food container, rather than elastic or stretchy conductive material positioned adjacent non-transfer material pieces, the pieces each contact the object, and a closure comprising male and female parts attached to one of the two or more sides as claimed.
This is not persuasive since Korr teaches aluminum foil panels, where aluminum is an elastic material as evidenced by Italpres NPL, the transfer and non-transfer material pieces contact the object (figures 3 and 6), and the closure of Korr reads on the structure of the closure as currently drafted. The removable cover 12 is the female part that receives the walls of container 14 (figure 3), where the closure is attached at the top side of the receptacle (figure 1).
Applicant’s argument against the dependent claims is not persuasive for the same reasons stated above.
Applicant argues a prima facie case of obviousness has not been shown for claim 19.
This is not persuasive since the prior art teaches the claimed structure as taught by Keefer, where the reference provides motivation to modify the structure of Korr as stated for said claim, the modification providing the predictable advantage of proper cooking energy and distribution to the respective foods as stated for claim 19.
Applicant argues claim 1 has been amended to include certain features i.e., “which controls a temperature of…housing to cool the object”, but said features have been removed from the claim. It appears the argument was unintentionally carried over from the previous response.
Applicant argues Richman teaches cooking a frankfurter by passing a current through aluminum foil strips around the bun via electrodes rather than elastic or stretchy conductive material positioned adjacent non-transfer material pieces, the pieces on the at least one side each contact the object, and a closure comprising male and female parts each attached to one of the two or more sides as claimed.
This is not persuasive since aluminum is an elastic material as evidenced by Italpres NPL, and the transfer and non-transfer material pieces on the at least one side contact the object (figure 4). Regarding the closure, Lin teaches a known zipper structure, where modification of Richman to include such a structure would have been obvious as stated for claim 1.
Applicant’s argument against the dependent claims is not persuasive for the same reason stated above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights