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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13 January 2026, per the request filed 11 February 2026, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 13 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, and 4 remain pending in the application. Claims 8 – 13 are new claims commensurate in scope with claims 1, 2, and 4 and therefore are under consideration.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, and 8 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swenson (US 2014/0335235 A1) in view of Fujimori (JP H10-218250 A, referencing a machine translation thereof provided with this Office Action). Alternative grounds are presented in further view of Giusti (EP 1,798,155 A1) as an additional reference to Swenson and Fujimori.
Regarding claim 1, Swenson discloses a heated food packing material (“pouch” for heating “food product”, e.g. “pouch” 12 for heating “food product” 14: e.g. e.g. Fig. 1 – 13C; ¶¶ [0006] – [0064]) comprising:
a sheet-like body capable of wrapping a food to be heated (“film”, e.g. “film” 16: Fig. 1, 1A, 1B, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F; e.g. ¶¶ [0007] – [0009], [0012], [0013], [0015], [0033] – [0036], [0045], [0046], [0050] – [0055]);
a penetrating part penetrating the sheet-like body (“cutline”, e.g. “cutline” 30, 30T: e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F; ¶¶ [0007] – [0009], [0012], [0013], [0015], [0033], [0034], [0036] – [0039], [0042], [0046], [0050], [0053] – [0057], [0064]), the penetrating part comprising:
a penetrating perforation extending across an entire first direction from one end to an other end of the sheet-like body (“segment” 34, 40, 42, 40T of “cutline” 30: e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F; ¶¶ [0035] – [0039], [0042], [0056]); and
a cutting-purpose penetrating part disposed at a position away in a second direction crossing the first direction from the penetrating perforation to serve as a starting point from which the sheet-like body is cut (“segment” 36, 44, 46, 46T of “cutline” 30: e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F; ¶¶ [0037] – [0039], [0042], [0056]); wherein
the heated food packing material configured to be used for heating the food wrapped therein in such a manner that one surface of the sheet-like body faces outside (e.g. Fig. 1B; ¶¶ [0007], [0010], [0012] – [0015], [0046], [0049] – [0051], [0064]), wherein
a pinching part is formed at an end of an area of the sheet-like body in which the cutting-purpose penetrating part is formed (“tab”, e.g. “tab” 48: e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B; ¶¶ [0038], [0039]),
the pinching part is configured to be capable of being pinched with fingers from an outside of the sheet-like body with the food wrapped therein (e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B; ¶¶ [0009], [0038], [0039], [0042]).
Swenson is considered to teach the penetrating perforation extending across an entire first direction from one end to an other end of the sheet-like body.
The examiner finds this reasonable since neither the claim nor the instant specification define an “end” to be an “edge” (or synonym thereof) of the sheet-like body. Moreover, the instant specification mentions providing the penetrating perforation, as well as other features, inside of a “peripheral end” of the sheet-like body (e.g. ¶¶ [0015], [0017], [0037], [0040]). The lack of a definition for an “end” and the additional of “peripheral” as an adjective to “end” are taken to indicate the term “end” is broader than an “edge” or like term.
However, even assuming arguendo an “end” can be considered an “edge”, Giusti provides penetrating perforations extending across an entire first direction from one end to an other end of a sheet-like body consistent with such an assumption, where this construction is useful for enhancing viewing of heated food for determining doneness and therefore also extraction of heated food due to the relative smaller size of the food compared to a viewing window (e.g. Fig. 1 – 4; ¶¶ [0001] – [0022]).
Therefore, in the alternative where an “end” of Swenson’s sheet-like body is insufficiently descriptive of an “edge” (or similar term), it would have been obvious to modify Swenson’s body such that the penetrating perforations extend across the entire first direction from one end to an other end (i.e. edge-to-edge) as Giusti suggests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification in order to improve viewing and extraction of the heated food.
Although Swenson is not explicit as to a sheet-like covering part being disposed to entirely cover the penetrating perforation and configured to allow water vapor to pass therethrough, the sheet-like covering part is disposed on an other surface of the sheet-like body, this feature would have been obvious in view of Fujimori.
Fujimori discloses a sheet-like covering part disposed to entirely cover a penetrating perforation, the sheet-like covering part being configured to allow water vapor to pass therethrough, where the sheet-like covering part is disposed on a surface of a sheet-like body facing a food product, the motivation being to prevent condensation of the water vapor which would otherwise impair flavor of the food product when heated (“breathable base material” 3 covering “permeable holes” 2: e.g. Fig. 1 – 10; ¶¶ [0003] – [0031], [0036]).
Swenson’s “cutlines” 30 forming the penetrating part include “vent holes” 28 (e.g. Fig. 11A – 11C; ¶¶ [0007], [0008], [0010], [0012], [0013], [0015], [0036], [0046], [0051] – [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Swenson’s packing material to comprise a sheet-like covering part disposed to entirely cover the penetrating perforation and configured to allow water vapor to pass therethrough, the sheet-like covering part being disposed on an other surface of the sheet-like body (i.e. the food-facing side) as Fujimori suggests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification in order to prevent impairment of flavor of the food product when it is heated.
Regarding claim 4, Swenson discloses a heated food packing material (“pouch” for heating “food product”, e.g. “pouch” 12 for heating “food product” 14: e.g. e.g. Fig. 1 – 13C; ¶¶ [0006] – [0064]) comprising:
a sheet member capable of wrapping a food to be heated (“film”, e.g. “film” 16: Fig. 1, 1A, 1B, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F; e.g. ¶¶ [0007] – [0009], [0012], [0013], [0015], [0033] – [0036], [0045], [0046], [0050] – [0055]), the sheet member comprising:
an easy-to-break part having a smaller breaking strength than another part of the sheet member (at a “tab” where the “pouch” 12 initially opens, e.g. “tab” 48: e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B; ¶¶ [0038], [0039]); and
a penetrating perforation extending across an entire first direction from one end to an other end of the sheet member and disposed at a position away in a second direction crossing the first direction from the easy-to-break part (“segment” 34, 40, 42, 40T of “cutline” 30: e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F; ¶¶ [0035] – [0039], [0042], [0056]); and
wherein the easy-to-break part is broken in a state where a food is wrapped in the sheet member to form a cutting-purpose penetrating part penetrating the sheet member and serving as a starting point from which the sheet material member is cut so that a sheet-like body comprising the cutting-purpose penetrating part is formed (at a “tab” where the “pouch” 12 initially opens, e.g. “tab” 48: e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B; ¶¶ [0038], [0039]),
the heated food packing material is configured to be used for heating the food wrapped therein (e.g. Fig. 1B; ¶¶ [0007], [0010], [0012] – [0015], [0046], [0049] – [0051], [0064]),
a pinching part is formed at an end of an area of the sheet-like body in which the cutting- purpose penetrating part is formed (“tab”, e.g. “tab” 48: e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B; ¶¶ [0038], [0039]), and
the pinching part is configured to be capable of being pinched with fingers from an outside of the sheet-like body with the food wrapped therein (e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B; ¶¶ [0009], [0038], [0039], [0042]).
Swenson is considered to teach the penetrating perforation extending across an entire first direction from one end to an other end of the sheet-like body.
The examiner finds this reasonable since neither the claim nor the instant specification define an “end” to be an “edge” (or synonym thereof) of the sheet-like body. Moreover, the instant specification mentions providing the penetrating perforation, as well as other features, inside of a “peripheral end” of the sheet-like body (e.g. ¶¶ [0015], [0017], [0037], [0040]). The lack of a definition for an “end” and the additional of “peripheral” as an adjective to “end” are taken to indicate the term “end” is broader than an “edge” or like term.
However, even assuming arguendo an “end” can be considered an “edge”, Giusti provides penetrating perforations extending across an entire first direction from one end to an other end of a sheet-like body consistent with such an assumption, where this construction is useful for enhancing viewing of heated food for determining doneness and therefore also extraction of heated food due to the relative smaller size of the food compared to a viewing window (e.g. Fig. 1 – 4; ¶¶ [0001] – [0022]).
Therefore, in the alternative where an “end” of Swenson’s sheet-like body is insufficiently descriptive of an “edge” (or similar term), it would have been obvious to modify Swenson’s body such that the penetrating perforations extend across the entire first direction from one end to an other end (i.e. edge-to-edge) as Giusti suggests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification in order to improve viewing and extraction of the heated food.
Although Swenson is not explicit as to a sheet-like covering part being disposed to entirely cover the penetrating perforation and configured to allow water vapor to pass therethrough, the sheet-like covering part is disposed on an other surface of the sheet-like body, this feature would have been obvious in view of Fujimori.
Fujimori discloses a sheet-like covering part disposed to entirely cover a penetrating perforation, the sheet-like covering part being configured to allow water vapor to pass therethrough, where the sheet-like covering part is disposed on a surface of a sheet-like body facing a food product, the motivation being to prevent condensation of the water vapor which would otherwise impair flavor of the food product when heated (“breathable base material” 3 covering “permeable holes” 2: e.g. Fig. 1 – 10; ¶¶ [0003] – [0031], [0036]).
Swenson’s “cutlines” 30 forming the penetrating part include “vent holes” 28 (e.g. Fig. 11A – 11C; ¶¶ [0007], [0008], [0010], [0012], [0013], [0015], [0036], [0046], [0051] – [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Swenson’s packing material to comprise a sheet-like covering part disposed to entirely cover the penetrating perforation and configured to allow water vapor to pass therethrough, the sheet-like covering part being disposed on an other surface of the sheet-like body (i.e. the food-facing side) as Fujimori suggests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification in order to prevent impairment of flavor of the food product when it is heated.
Regarding claim 8, Swenson discloses a heated food packing material (“pouch” for heating “food product”, e.g. “pouch” 12 for heating “food product” 14: e.g. e.g. Fig. 1 – 13C; ¶¶ [0006] – [0064]) comprising:
a sheet-like body capable of wrapping a food to be heated so as to conform to a shape of the food (“film”, e.g. “film” 16: Fig. 1, 1A, 1B, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F; e.g. ¶¶ [0007] – [0009], [0012], [0013], [0015], [0033] – [0036], [0045], [0046], [0050] – [0055]);
a penetrating part penetrating the sheet-like body (“cutline”, e.g. “cutline” 30, 30T: e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F; ¶¶ [0007] – [0009], [0012], [0013], [0015], [0033], [0034], [0036] – [0039], [0042], [0046], [0050], [0053] – [0057], [0064]), the penetrating part comprising:
a penetrating perforation extending across an entire first direction from one end to an other end of the sheet-like body (“segment” 34, 40, 42, 40T of “cutline” 30: e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F; ¶¶ [0035] – [0039], [0042], [0056]); and
a cutting-purpose penetrating part disposed at a position away in a second direction crossing the first direction from the penetrating perforation to serve as a starting point from which the sheet-like body is cut (“segment” 36, 44, 46, 46T of “cutline” 30: e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F; ¶¶ [0037] – [0039], [0042], [0056]); wherein
the heated food packing material configured to be used for heating the food wrapped therein so as to conform to the shape of the food in such a manner that one surface of the sheet- like body faces outside (e.g. Fig. 1B; ¶¶ [0007], [0010], [0012] – [0015], [0046], [0049] – [0051], [0064]), wherein
a pinching part is formed at an end of an area of the sheet-like body in which the cutting- purpose penetrating part is formed (“tab”, e.g. “tab” 48: e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B; ¶¶ [0038], [0039]),
the pinching part is configured to be capable of being pinched with fingers from an outside of the sheet-like body with the food wrapped therein so as to conform to a shape of the food (e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B; ¶¶ [0009], [0038], [0039], [0042]).
Swenson is considered to teach the penetrating perforation extending across an entire first direction from one end to an other end of the sheet-like body.
The examiner finds this reasonable since neither the claim nor the instant specification define an “end” to be an “edge” (or synonym thereof) of the sheet-like body. Moreover, the instant specification mentions providing the penetrating perforation, as well as other features, inside of a “peripheral end” of the sheet-like body (e.g. ¶¶ [0015], [0017], [0037], [0040]). The lack of a definition for an “end” and the additional of “peripheral” as an adjective to “end” are taken to indicate the term “end” is broader than an “edge” or like term.
However, even assuming arguendo an “end” can be considered an “edge”, Giusti provides penetrating perforations extending across an entire first direction from one end to an other end of a sheet-like body consistent with such an assumption, where this construction is useful for enhancing viewing of heated food for determining doneness and therefore also extraction of heated food due to the relative smaller size of the food compared to a viewing window (e.g. Fig. 1 – 4; ¶¶ [0001] – [0022]).
Therefore, in the alternative where an “end” of Swenson’s sheet-like body is insufficiently descriptive of an “edge” (or similar term), it would have been obvious to modify Swenson’s body such that the penetrating perforations extend across the entire first direction from one end to an other end (i.e. edge-to-edge) as Giusti suggests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification in order to improve viewing and extraction of the heated food.
Although Swenson is not explicit as to a sheet-like covering part being disposed to entirely cover the penetrating perforation and configured to allow water vapor to pass therethrough, the sheet-like covering part is disposed on an other surface of the sheet-like body, this feature would have been obvious in view of Fujimori.
Fujimori discloses a sheet-like covering part disposed to entirely cover a penetrating perforation, the sheet-like covering part being configured to allow water vapor to pass therethrough, where the sheet-like covering part is disposed on a surface of a sheet-like body facing a food product, the motivation being to prevent condensation of the water vapor which would otherwise impair flavor of the food product when heated (“breathable base material” 3 covering “permeable holes” 2: e.g. Fig. 1 – 10; ¶¶ [0003] – [0031], [0036]).
Swenson’s “cutlines” 30 forming the penetrating part include “vent holes” 28 (e.g. Fig. 11A – 11C; ¶¶ [0007], [0008], [0010], [0012], [0013], [0015], [0036], [0046], [0051] – [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Swenson’s packing material to comprise a sheet-like covering part disposed to entirely cover the penetrating perforation and configured to allow water vapor to pass therethrough, the sheet-like covering part being disposed on an other surface of the sheet-like body (i.e. the food-facing side) as Fujimori suggests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification in order to prevent impairment of flavor of the food product when it is heated.
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 8, Swenson discloses
the penetrating perforation comprises a pair of penetrating perforations (“segment” 34, 40, 42, 40T of “cutline” 30: e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F; ¶¶ [0035] – [0039], [0042], [0056]),
the pair of penetrating perforations are disposed away in the second direction from each other (e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F), and
the cutting-purpose penetrating part is disposed between the pair of penetrating perforations in the second direction (e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F).
Regarding claim 10, Swenson discloses a heated food packing material (“pouch” for heating “food product”, e.g. “pouch” 12 for heating “food product” 14: e.g. e.g. Fig. 1 – 13C; ¶¶ [0006] – [0064]) comprising:
a sheet member capable of wrapping a food to be heated so as to conform to a shape of the food (“film”, e.g. “film” 16: Fig. 1, 1A, 1B, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F; e.g. ¶¶ [0007] – [0009], [0012], [0013], [0015], [0033] – [0036], [0045], [0046], [0050] – [0055]), the sheet member comprising:
an easy-to-break part having a smaller breaking strength than another part of the sheet member (at a “tab” where the “pouch” 12 initially opens, e.g. “tab” 48: e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B; ¶¶ [0038], [0039]); and
a penetrating perforation extending across an entire first direction from one end to an other end of the sheet member and disposed at a position away in a second direction crossing the first direction from the easy-to-break part (“segment” 34, 40, 42, 40T of “cutline” 30: e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F; ¶¶ [0035] – [0039], [0042], [0056]); and
the easy-to-break part is broken in a state where a food is wrapped in the sheet member to form a cutting-purpose penetrating part penetrating the sheet member and serving as a starting point from which the sheet member is cut so that a sheet-like body comprising the cutting-purpose penetrating part is formed,
the heated food packing material is configured to be used for heating the food wrapped therein so as to conform to the shape of the food (e.g. Fig. 1B; ¶¶ [0007], [0010], [0012] – [0015], [0046], [0049] – [0051], [0064]),
a pinching part is formed at an end of an area of the sheet-like body in which the cutting-purpose penetrating part is formed (“tab”, e.g. “tab” 48: e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B; ¶¶ [0038], [0039]),
the pinching part is configured to be capable of being pinched with fingers from an outside of the sheet-like body with the food wrapped therein (e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B; ¶¶ [0009], [0038], [0039], [0042]).
Swenson is considered to teach the penetrating perforation extending across an entire first direction from one end to an other end of the sheet-like body.
The examiner finds this reasonable since neither the claim nor the instant specification define an “end” to be an “edge” (or synonym thereof) of the sheet-like body. Moreover, the instant specification mentions providing the penetrating perforation, as well as other features, inside of a “peripheral end” of the sheet-like body (e.g. ¶¶ [0015], [0017], [0037], [0040]). The lack of a definition for an “end” and the additional of “peripheral” as an adjective to “end” are taken to indicate the term “end” is broader than an “edge” or like term.
However, even assuming arguendo an “end” can be considered an “edge”, Giusti provides penetrating perforations extending across an entire first direction from one end to an other end of a sheet-like body consistent with such an assumption, where this construction is useful for enhancing viewing of heated food for determining doneness and therefore also extraction of heated food due to the relative smaller size of the food compared to a viewing window (e.g. Fig. 1 – 4; ¶¶ [0001] – [0022]).
Therefore, in the alternative where an “end” of Swenson’s sheet-like body is insufficiently descriptive of an “edge” (or similar term), it would have been obvious to modify Swenson’s body such that the penetrating perforations extend across the entire first direction from one end to an other end (i.e. edge-to-edge) as Giusti suggests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification in order to improve viewing and extraction of the heated food.
Although Swenson is not explicit as to a sheet-like covering part being disposed to entirely cover the penetrating perforation and configured to allow water vapor to pass therethrough, the sheet-like covering part is disposed on an other surface of the sheet-like body, this feature would have been obvious in view of Fujimori.
Fujimori discloses a sheet-like covering part disposed to entirely cover a penetrating perforation, the sheet-like covering part being configured to allow water vapor to pass therethrough, where the sheet-like covering part is disposed on a surface of a sheet-like body facing a food product, the motivation being to prevent condensation of the water vapor which would otherwise impair flavor of the food product when heated (“breathable base material” 3 covering “permeable holes” 2: e.g. Fig. 1 – 10; ¶¶ [0003] – [0031], [0036]).
Swenson’s “cutlines” 30 forming the penetrating part include “vent holes” 28 (e.g. Fig. 11A – 11C; ¶¶ [0007], [0008], [0010], [0012], [0013], [0015], [0036], [0046], [0051] – [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Swenson’s packing material to comprise a sheet-like covering part disposed to entirely cover the penetrating perforation and configured to allow water vapor to pass therethrough, the sheet-like covering part being disposed on an other surface of the sheet-like body (i.e. the food-facing side) as Fujimori suggests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification in order to prevent impairment of flavor of the food product when it is heated.
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 10, Swenson discloses
the penetrating perforation comprises a pair of penetrating perforations (“segment” 34, 40, 42, 40T of “cutline” 30: e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F; ¶¶ [0035] – [0039], [0042], [0056]),
the pair of penetrating perforations are disposed away in the second direction from each other (e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F), and
the cutting-purpose penetrating part is disposed between the pair of penetrating perforations in the second direction (e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F).
Regarding claim 12, Swenson discloses a heated food packed product (“pouch” for heating “food product”, e.g. “pouch” 12 for heating “food product” 14: e.g. e.g. Fig. 1 – 13C; ¶¶ [0006] – [0064]) comprising:
a food to be heated (“food product” 14: e.g. Fig. 1, 1A, 1B; ¶¶ [0010] – [0014], [0035], [0045]); and a packing material (“pouch”, “package” 12: e.g. Fig. 1, 1A, 1B, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F; ¶¶ [0010], [0012], [0014], [0035] – [0039], [0042], [0045], [0051] – [0053]), wherein
the packing material comprises:
a sheet-like body capable of wrapping a food to be heated so as to conform to a shape of the food (“film”, e.g. “film” 16: Fig. 1, 1A, 1B, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F; e.g. ¶¶ [0007] – [0009], [0012], [0013], [0015], [0033] – [0036], [0045], [0046], [0050] – [0055]);
a penetrating part penetrating the sheet-like body (“cutline”, e.g. “cutline” 30, 30T: e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F; ¶¶ [0007] – [0009], [0012], [0013], [0015], [0033], [0034], [0036] – [0039], [0042], [0046], [0050], [0053] – [0057], [0064]), the penetrating part comprising:
a penetrating perforation extending across an entire first direction from one end to an other end of the sheet-like body (“segment” 34, 40, 42, 40T of “cutline” 30: e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F; ¶¶ [0035] – [0039], [0042], [0056]); and
a cutting-purpose penetrating part disposed at a position away in a second direction crossing the first direction from the penetrating perforation to serve as a starting point from which the sheet-like body is cut (“segment” 36, 44, 46, 46T of “cutline” 30: e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F; ¶¶ [0037] – [0039], [0042], [0056]); and
the food is wrapped in the packing material so as to conform to the shape of the food in contact with the sheet-like covering part (e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B; ¶¶ [0009], [0038], [0039], [0042]),
a pinching part is formed at an end of an area of the sheet-like body in which the cutting-purpose penetrating part is formed (“tab”, e.g. “tab” 48: e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B; ¶¶ [0038], [0039]),
the pinching part is configured to be capable of being pinched with fingers from an outside of the food (e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B; ¶¶ [0009], [0038], [0039], [0042]),
the penetrating perforation is disposed to conform to the shape of the food (e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B; ¶¶ [0009], [0038], [0039], [0042]), and
the food is wrapped in the packing material so as to conform to the shape of the food (e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B; ¶¶ [0009], [0038], [0039], [0042]).
Swenson is considered to teach the penetrating perforation extending across an entire first direction from one end to an other end of the sheet-like body.
The examiner finds this reasonable since neither the claim nor the instant specification define an “end” to be an “edge” (or synonym thereof) of the sheet-like body. Moreover, the instant specification mentions providing the penetrating perforation, as well as other features, inside of a “peripheral end” of the sheet-like body (e.g. ¶¶ [0015], [0017], [0037], [0040]). The lack of a definition for an “end” and the additional of “peripheral” as an adjective to “end” are taken to indicate the term “end” is broader than an “edge” or like term.
However, even assuming arguendo an “end” can be considered an “edge”, Giusti provides penetrating perforations extending across an entire first direction from one end to an other end of a sheet-like body consistent with such an assumption, where this construction is useful for enhancing viewing of heated food for determining doneness and therefore also extraction of heated food due to the relative smaller size of the food compared to a viewing window (e.g. Fig. 1 – 4; ¶¶ [0001] – [0022]).
Therefore, in the alternative where an “end” of Swenson’s sheet-like body is insufficiently descriptive of an “edge” (or similar term), it would have been obvious to modify Swenson’s body such that the penetrating perforations extend across the entire first direction from one end to an other end (i.e. edge-to-edge) as Giusti suggests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification in order to improve viewing and extraction of the heated food.
Although Swenson is not explicit as to a sheet-like covering part being disposed to entirely cover the penetrating perforation and configured to allow water vapor to pass therethrough, this feature would have been obvious in view of Fujimori.
Fujimori discloses a sheet-like covering part disposed to entirely cover a penetrating perforation, the sheet-like covering part being configured to allow water vapor to pass therethrough, the motivation being to prevent condensation of the water vapor which would otherwise impair flavor of the food product when heated (“breathable base material” 3 covering “permeable holes” 2: e.g. Fig. 1 – 10; ¶¶ [0003] – [0031], [0036]).
Swenson’s “cutlines” 30 forming the penetrating part include “vent holes” 28 (e.g. Fig. 11A – 11C; ¶¶ [0007], [0008], [0010], [0012], [0013], [0015], [0036], [0046], [0051] – [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Swenson’s packing material to comprise a sheet-like covering part disposed to entirely cover the penetrating perforation and configured to allow water vapor to pass therethrough, the sheet-like covering part being disposed on an other surface of the sheet-like body (i.e. the food-facing side) as Fujimori suggests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification in order to prevent impairment of flavor of the food product when it is heated.
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the limitations of claim 12, Swenson discloses
the penetrating perforation comprises a pair of penetrating perforations (“segment” 34, 40, 42, 40T of “cutline” 30: e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F; ¶¶ [0035] – [0039], [0042], [0056]),
the pair of penetrating perforations are disposed away in the second direction from each other (e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F), and
the cutting-purpose penetrating part is disposed between the pair of penetrating perforations in the second direction (e.g. Fig. 1, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swenson and Fujimori, alternatively in further view of Giusti, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Su (US 2007/0215610 A1).
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Fujimori discloses
the sheet-like covering part is formed of a non-woven cloth (e.g. ¶¶ [0004], [0008] – [0010], [0025], [0026], [0036]).
Although Swenson and Fujimori are not explicit as to the heated food packing material further comprising a sheet-like overlapping part disposed to overlap a surface of the sheet-like body covered with the sheet-like covering part, at a position away from the sheet-like covering part, this feature would have been obvious in view of Su.
Su discloses a heated food packing material further comprising a sheet-like overlapping part disposed to overlap a surface of the sheet-like body on the outside surface away from food to cover a vent hole in order to prevent ingress of contaminants outside the packing material (“nonwoven patch” 66: e.g. Fig. 6; ¶¶ [0011] – [0080]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the heated food packing material Swenson discloses such that the heated food packing material further comprises a sheet-like overlapping part disposed to overlap a surface of the sheet-like body covered with the sheet-like covering part, at a position away from the sheet-like covering part (i.e. opposite the surface facing the food product) as Su suggests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification to prevent contamination of the food product within the packing material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 7 – 12, filed 13 January 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Swenson and Fujimori, alternatively with Giusti as an additional reference.
Applicant asserts the claimed penetrating perforation is formed across the entire length of the sheet-like body in the first direction, i.e. from one end to the other, comprising Fig. 4 of the instant application with Swenson’s Fig. 10A.
As noted in the rejections, Applicant’s interpretation of an end-to-end extension of the penetrating perforation is narrower than the claims permit. Stating the penetrating perforation exists at an end of the sheet-like body does not mandate the penetrating perforation extend to the edge of the sheet-like body as shown in Fig. 4 of the instant application. This notion is supported in the instant specification using the term “peripheral end”. Therefore, Swenson properly reads on the claim.
However, even considering Applicant’s position of interpretation, Giusti renders obvious this feature. Swenson is open-ended as to patterns for the penetrating perforation (e.g. ¶ [0037]), so considering an edge-to-edge configuration as Giusti discloses which is consistent with Fig. 4 of the instant application is reasonable, particularly given Giusti’s motivation for improved viewing and extraction of a food product.
Fujimori is cited for teaching a sheet-like covering part on an “other surface” of the sheet-like body, which the examiner understands to be the food-facing surface as the claims already mention “one surface” faces outside.
As to Applicant’s comments that Swenson’s tabs 48 would not render obvious the edge-to-edge extension discussed previously, the examiner notes Swenson positions their tabs 48 in positions which would be convenient for opening via the segments 44, 46 (e.g. Fig. 10A – 10F demonstrate different orientations of the tabs 48 relative to the adjacent segments 44, 46). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found modifications in view of Giusti to address Applicant’s concerns.
Applicant also asserts the claimed penetrating perforations are bent into a U shape, but this is not claimed.
For these reasons, Swenson and Fujimori, with support from Giusti as needed, are considered to reasonably render obvious the claimed invention. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, and 4 are similar to those Applicant presents with respect to the new claims, and thus the cited art is similarly applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN A. UTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783