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
Claim 14 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 01/13/2026.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Howitt (US 11253097B2).
Howitt discloses in reference to claim:
1. A system (Fig. 1) for preparing a dose of food, the system comprising: - a first sealed package (Fig. 1, ref. 2a--FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a food re-heating appliance which comprises six individual chambers 2a,b,c,d,e,f which in use receive sealed packages of raw, cooked or partially cooked food.) containing a first ingredient ; - a second sealed package (Fig. 1, ref. 2b) containing a second ingredient ; and - at least one machine configured to supply hot water and steam for directly cooking and/or heating the first ingredient (Each chamber 2a-f comprises a multi-purpose inlet/outlet port 4a-f which can allow water and/or steam into the respective chamber and which can also allow water to be drained out again) in accordance with first cooking and/or heating parameters (- hot water and steam can both be delivered to heat/cook the first ingredient) and for indirectly cooking and/or heating the second ingredient in accordance with second cooking and/or heating parameters.
The device described hereinbelow acts to cook, reheat or complete cooking of the food inside the packages using a combination of hot water and steam according to a predetermined program specified by the chef responsible for the particular dish. The plurality of chambers mean that, if necessary, different programs can be applied to some or all of the chambers to suit their contents. An entire meal comprising a number of different components can therefore be prepared to be ready at a common time.
PNG
media_image1.png
724
911
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Howitt discloses:
1. A system for preparing a dose of food, the system (fig. 1) comprising: a first sealed package containing a first ingredient (received at 2a); at least one second sealed package (received at 2b) containing a second ingredient; and at least one machine (fig. 1) configured to supply hot water and steam for directly cooking and/or heating the first ingredient in accordance with first cooking and/or heating parameters and for indirectly cooking and/or heating the second ingredient in accordance with second cooking and/or heating parameters; and a container B having an upper opening at A delimited by a container rim A and configured to contain the at least one second sealed package (chambers 2a,b,c,d,e,f which in use receive sealed packages of raw, cooked or partially cooked food) so as to perform the cooking/heating of the second ingredient within the container without opening the at least one second sealed package.
PNG
media_image2.png
326
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
4. The system as claimed in Claim Claim 1, wherein the container B is configured to cook/heat the second ingredient in a plurality of second packages (see fig.1 showing a plurality of containers).
8. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein said machine is configured to dispense steam and hot water independently of each other. The device described hereinbelow acts to cook, reheat or complete cooking of the food inside the packages using a combination of hot water and steam according to a predetermined program specified by the chef responsible for the particular dish. This means that water can be supplied from the tank 10 to any of the chambers 2a-f when the corresponding valves of the valve pairs 8a, 8b, 8c are opened. Each chamber 2a-f comprises a multi-purpose inlet/outlet port 4a-f which can allow water and/or steam into the respective chamber and which can also allow water to be drained out again.
9. The system as claimed in claim 1, and comprising a plurality of interchangeable dispensers depending on the modes of operation of the machine. See Fig. 1 showing interchangeable dispensers 2a-f.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
EXEMPLARY RATIONALES
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2, 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howitt (US 11253097B2) in view of Harrison (US 2021/0061540A1) and/or France et al. (US 2009/0035433A1).
Howitt discloses the claimed invention as discussed above except in reference to claim:
2. The system as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the first sealed package comprises a tray with a compartment containing the first ingredient; an upper opening delimited by first rim a tray rim; and a sealing element of the tray; the machine and the tray being configured to be coupled to each other at the upper opening of the tray once the sealing element has been removed so as to perform the cooking/heating of the first ingredient in the tray.
Howitt discusses the use of a package for the use in the device but does not explicitly discuss the specifics of the package. France discloses a meal package 100 wherein the package comprises a tray Z with a compartment containing the first ingredient 104; an upper opening delimited by a first rim (seen in fig. 4) . Harrison discloses a meal package (Optionally, the container may comprise an outer rim bounding the opening of the container) wherein the package comprises a tray 21 with a compartment containing the first ingredient 26; an upper opening delimited by a first rim (seen at 24) ; and a sealing element 22 of the tray. Howitt discloses the machine and the package being configured to be coupled to each other at the upper opening of the package. Harrison suggests the sealing element can be removed to perform the cooking/heating of the first ingredient in the tray.
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to use the meal package as disclosed by France or Harrison in the device of Howitt since it was known in the art to use such packages for holding food to be cooked.
PNG
media_image3.png
1142
997
media_image3.png
Greyscale
5. The system as claimed in Claim 4, wherein the container comprises a cup body Z ; and an insert Q configured to be housed in the cup body Z and maintain the second packages at a predetermined position in the cup body Z.
6. The system as claimed in Claim 5, wherein the insert Q is configured to convey steam (through perforations) to a determined portion of the second packages.
7. The system as claimed in Claim 2, wherein container rim and the tray rim are equal in shape and size. See fig. 4 of France.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: although the prior art, specifically Howitt, discloses the claimed invention (see Fig. 1) including wherein the machine comprises a first steam supply duct 40a; a second hot water supply duct 6a; and a first connector 8a extending along an axis and integral with the machine in which the first and the second ducts converge, Howitt does not specifically teach of the dispensers comprising a respective first sleeve configured to be fitted around the first connector.
Claim 15 is allowed since it incorporates the indicated allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has not offered specific arguments with respect to the cited references as applied.
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 THOR S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4776. The examiner can normally be reached M,W-F 6:30-10:30, 12-4.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 5712705569. 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.
/THOR S CAMPBELL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
tsc
Prosecution Insights