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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/30/25 has been entered.
Claims 1,3-4,7,9,11-15 are amended and claims 2,5-6,10,16 are cancelled. Claims 17-21 are added. Claims 1,3-4,7-9,11-15 and 17-21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1,3-4,7-9,11-15 and 17-21 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.
In claim 1: Line 5, the recitation of “ the inner surface “ does not have proper antecedent basis. Line 12, the recitation of “ the inner surface” does not have proper antecedent basis. Lines 13-14, the recitation of “ the side surfaces” does not have proper antecedent basis. The limitation “ a part of the side surfaces of the box body does not exist or all or a part of the side surfaces of the box body is deformed so as to not exist” is vague and indefinite because it’s not clear what is intended. If the part does not exist, then what would be considered as “ the side surfaces” or if it’s deformed, then there is not structure. It’s not clear what structure is intended to claim. Line 15, the recitation of “ the vertical direction” does not have proper antecedent basis.
In claim 3, the recitation of “ the inner surface” does not have proper antecedent basis. The limitation “ wherein the package container is an outer packaging bag” is vague and indefinite because it’s not clear what the outer packaging bag indicates; outer relative to what.
Claim 4 is vague and indefinite because it’s not clear what is intended to be claimed. Lines 3-5 states that support is a package container but line 6 states the package container is a box body. Claim 1 recites 3 different types of supports and package container is a different support from a box body. Thus, it’s unclear what is meant by support being both package container and box body. Additionally, lines 7-13 have the same problem as lines 13-14 of claim 1 with respect to the feature of the box body.
Claims 11, 12,13 has the same problem as claim 4.
Claim 17 is has the same problem as claim 4. Additionally, the limitation “ wherein at least a surface of the package container or the support” is vague and indefinite because it’s clear what is intended because the claim recites the support is a box body, not package container or the support. It’s not clear what this features refers to.
In claim 19, the recitation of “ the side surfaces” , “ the vertical direction” does not have proper antecedent basis.
Claim 20 has the same problem as claim 19. Additionally, the recitation of “ the bottom surface” does not have proper antecedent basis.
Claim 21 has the same problem as claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1,4,9,14,15,19,20,21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonda ( 2005/0118307) in view of Paulucci ( 6168812), Murphy ( 4517206) and DeGeorge ( 2013/0167857).
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. 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)
Gonda does not disclose enclosing the support in package container as in claim 1, feature of box body as in claims 4, the feature in claim 9, the thickness as in claim 14, the distance as in claim 15, inclination as in claim 19, the deform as in claim 20 and the tear off feature as in claim 21.
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)
DeGeorge discloses paperboard packagining container. The container have two sets of perforated lines positioned so as to define a tear-off strip to be torn to tear the container. ( see paragraph 0043)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to enclose the tray within an outer packaging box as disclosed in Paulucci and Murphy to form sealed food package to protect the dumplings from outside 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 to its being flat against the bottom surface of the box is a matter of preference. The dumplings in Gonda is 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. Packaging container having tear-off strip to allow opening of the packaging is known in the art as shown in DeGeorge. It would have been readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a tear-off strip in the packaging container to allow easy opening of the packaging. Such parameter would have been readily obvious to one skilled in the art. 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. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to space the jiaozis depending on how packed it’s desired to pack the dumplings. Such parameter can readily be determined by one skilled in the art.
Claim(s) 3,8,9,12,13,17,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonda ( 2005/0118307) in view of Paulucci ( 6168812), Murphy ( 4517206) and DeGeorge ( 2013/0167857).
as applied to claims 1,4,9,14,15,19,20,21 above, and further in view of Takahagi ( 2005/0255200) and Kruzenshtern ( WO 2008073004).
Gonda in view of Paulucci, Murphy and DeGerorge does not disclose enclosing the tray in a bag and water resistant packagning.
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)
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument had been addressed in the Advisory Action mailed on 1/15/26.
Conclusion
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.
February 7, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793