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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 9-13) in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged.
It is noted that the status identifier for claims 14-18 were not updated with the response. Claims 14-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/15/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 9, in line 7 after “permittivies using” insert “the” since “”two or more parts having different permittivities” was previously recited.
Regarding claims 10-13, in line 1 after “wherein in” delete “the” 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 9-13 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 9, in line 1 the limitation “a food uniformly heated by microwave irradiation” renders the claim indefinite since the language is ambiguous. It is unclear if the food is heated by microwave during production, or if the limitation is reciting an intended use of the food obtained by the production method.
In line 4 the limitation “differentiating components or their contents that affect permittivity” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what feature(s) are encompassed by the term “differentiating”. The specification does not provide further detail with respect to “differentiating” for one of ordinary skill to determine what is meant by the term.
Regarding claim 10, in line 2 the limitation “comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of…” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if “the components that affect the permittivity” is actually selected from a closed group of alternatives. See 2173.05(h).
Regarding claim 11, in line 2 the limitation “the divided section” renders the claim indefinite since the antecedent basis is ambiguous. Claim 9 recites “two or more divided sections”. It is unclear if “the divided section” in claim 11 is referring to the above limitation, or to some other feature.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “the divided section” renders the claim indefinite for the same reason stated for claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “the divided section” renders the claim indefinite for the same reason stated for claim 11.
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 9-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adashek (US 5,962,050 A).
Regarding claim 9, in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above, the limitation “a food uniformly heated by microwave irradiation” is interpreted to be directed to an intended use of the food obtained by the claimed production method, and therefore not actually required by the process. The limitation “differentiating components or their contents that affect permittivity” is interpreted to mean the two or more parts are subjected to any known means to cause any difference between the parts. It is noted the limitation “dividing” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation to include partitioning without severing.
Adashek teaches a food production method (abstract) comprising dividing a single-category food such as pizza dough 28 into two or more parts 36 and 38 (figures 3-4; column 3 lines 11-21), differentiating components in the parts by adding different toppings to each part (figure 1; column 2 lines 53-59 and 61-64), and baking to produce a single-category food (pizza) containing two or more divided sections having different permittivities using two or more parts having different permittivities (abstract). The divided parts would necessarily have different permittivities due to the different toppings used for each part.
Regarding claim 10, the components that affect permittivity include protein and fat e.g., cheese and meat (column 2 lines 54-55).
Regarding claim 13, the divided food comprises a “core-shell shape” where one divided section 12 surrounds another section 14 (figure 1).
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elnakib et al. (US 2007/0160715 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the interpretations applied to claim 9 for Adashek above are similarly applied.
Elnakib et al. teaches a food production method (abstract) comprising dividing a single-category food such as pizza dough 14 into two or more parts 20 (figures 7-8; paragraphs 20-21), differentiating components in the parts by adding different toppings to each part (figure 8; paragraph 22), and baking to produce a single-category food (pizza) containing two or more divided sections having different permittivities using two or more parts having different permittivities (figure 1; paragraph 20). The divided parts would necessarily have different permittivities due to the different toppings used for each part.
Regarding claim 10, the components that affect permittivity include protein and fat e.g., cheese and sausage (paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 11, the divided sections having different permittivities include a layer formed by adjoining one divided section to another at portions 18 (figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, the divided sections having different permittivities include one section 18 (without toppings) interspersed within another divided section 20 (with toppings) (figure 1).
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 at (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