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 .
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 6/11/26. Claims 1,8,17 are amended and claims 2-7,10-13,16,18-21 are cancelled. Claims 1,8-9,14-15,17 are pending.
The previous 112 second paragraph rejection is withdrawn due to the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1,8-9,14-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonda ( 2005/0118307) in view of Paulucci ( 6168812), Murphy ( 4517206) , Takahagi ( 2005/0255200) and Kruzenshtern ( WO 2008073004).
For claim 1, Gonda discloses a frozen linked jiaozis ( gyoza dumplings). The linked frozen jiaozis are on a tray. ( see paragraphs 0015,0019,0026,0045) The linked jiaozis are the same as the claimed dumplings connected by a wing forming frozen composition. The tray is the support in contact with the linked jiaozis which is the connecting surface. The tray is flat. The tray is the same as the flat plate body. Thus, it’s inherent the linked jiaozis can slide thereon. The tray has a flat inner bottom. Thus, it is the same as the claimed support flat plate body. ( see paragraph 0074)
Claim 1 gives the alternative (i), (ii) or (iii). The tray meet the criteria (ii).
Gonda does not disclose enclosing the support in a bag and the surface of the support is water resistant as in claim 1, the flat plate body enclosed in bag as in claim 8, the feature in claim 9, the thickness as in claim 14, the distance as in claim 15 and the box feature as in claim 17.
Paulucci discloses placing a food product on a support plate and enclosing the plate inside a box body. (see figure 7)
Murphy discloses a food package comprising a box providing an enclosure of substantially rigid construction and a slidably tray positioned within the carton. ( see col. 1 lines 45-55)
Takahagi discloses a food packaging bag which can be hermetically seal and packs foods therein for long-term storage. ( see abstract)
Kruzenshtern discloses packaging containers for food products. The container is made from a polymer film and a water resistant sheet material. ( see abstract)
For claims 1,8,17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to enclose the tray disclosed in Gonda within an outer packaging box as disclosed in Paulucci and Murphy to form sealed food package to protect the dumplings from outside contamination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to enclose the packaging container and box package within a packaging bag as disclosed Takahagi to form sealed food package to give further protection from outside contamination for long-term storage. It would have been readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art to use water resistant material as taught in Kruzenshtern to protect the food product from moisture contamination. Murphy discloses the outer carton is formed of paperboard material. Paulucci discloses a box body comprising support plate. It is known in the art as demonstrated by Murphy that food packaging box is made of paperboard material which can be readily collapse such as for recycling. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to collapse the box to remove the linked dumpling disclosed in Gonda. The degree of collapsing to the extent that the box is opened would have been an obvious matter of preference in the handling of the box and would have been well within the skill of one in the art. The dumplings in Gonda are linked so they will be taken out in connected state. It would have been readily apparent to one skilled in the art to slide the support to take out because the support in Gonda is a flat tray. It would have been an obvious matter of preference to incline the box to any varying inclination angle to take out the tray if that is how one wants to take the tray out. The handling of packaging box is an obvious matter of preference with no criticality attached. For claim 9, Gonda discloses linking the dumplings. It would have been obvious to line the dumplings for linking to have any varying configuration depending on the appearance desired. For claim 14, Gonda discloses the thickness of the batter linking the jiaozis is 1mm or more which would encompass the claimed range of 3-10mm. For claim 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to space the jiaozis to have any varying distance depending on the number of dumplings desired to be packed. Such parameter can readily be determined by one skilled in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant states that claims 7 and 11 were not included in the previous obviousness rejection and claim 1 is now amended to include features of claims 7 and 11. The obviousness has been obviated in connection with embodiment ( ii) and ( iii). The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s statement. The previous office action contains error with respect to the inclusion of the claim number in the heading of the rejection. But, it’s clear that the claims are rejected. Previous claim 7 recites the support is a flat body enclosed in a bag and where in the package container is water resistant. The features of water resistant and bag are rejected further in view of Takagagi and Kruzenshtern in paragraph 6 of the previous office action to address the feature of the bag and water resistance support. The heading accidentally omitted claim 7 but the limitations are clearly addressed with regard to the bag and the water resistance. Claim 11 recites the feature of box body which is addressed in the rejection in paragraph 5 of the previous office action. The claim was accidentally omitted from the heading. But, the limitations of the box body, the tilting, the deformation and the inclination were all addressed. Thus, the claims were rejected. All the claims are now rejected under single rejection because of the amendment but the rejection is not changed. The DeGeorge reference is removed because the claims pertaining to tear-off zipper are cancelled.
Applicant argues that the package container which is an outer packaging bag is structurally different from the tray of Gonda et al. This argument is not persuasive. The rejection does not relied on Gonda et al. Claim 1 is not limited to only component (i). It’s only 1 of the alternatives. But, even if the claim is limited to only feature (i), it still does not define over the prior art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to enclose the tray disclosed in Gonda within an outer packaging box as disclosed in Paulucci and Murphy to form sealed food package to protect the dumplings from outside contamination. Applicant does not argue why this would not have been obvious.
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 LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
August 27, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights