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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/7/2025 has been entered.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-22, 24-25, 27-29, 39 and 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shabbycreek NPL in view of Vischer (US 3,235,390). Heattransfer NPL is relied on as evidence.
Regarding claim 21, Shabbycreek NPL teaches a frozen modular meal system comprising a first modular meal component in a first tray and a second modular meal component in a second tray (page 1 figure and second paragraph). The first modular meal component is made by adding lasagna noodles (first meal component as a starch component) and marinara sauce (first sauce component) to a first tray, wherein the marinara is in fluid form when added to the tray (page 2 “Easy lasagna recipe”). The second modular meal component is made by adding shredded chicken breast (second meal component as a protein component) and cheddar soup (second sauce component) to a second tray, wherein the soup would have necessarily been in fluid form when added to the tray in order to allow for the ingredients to be mixed (page 3 “Broccoli cheddar chicken pasta bake recipe”).
Examiner notes the limitation “sauce component” is not defined by the specification, and therefore the limitation is given its broadest reasonable interpretation to mean any liquid (viscous or otherwise) that can be combined with another food. The limitation “heating efficiency” is not defined by the specification, but is disclosed to include features such as those recited in paragraphs 125-126, 131, 133, and 135-137. The limitation “each of the first and second frozen modular meal components reaches at least 165oF…when heated from frozen with the other of the first and second frozen modular meal components a same heating time period…a same heating temperature” is interpreted to mean that the claimed feature occurs when the first and second frozen modular meal components are heated together from frozen and obtain at least 165oF in a single (same) heating cycle.
Shabbycreek NPL teaches the filled first and second modular meal components are frozen (pages 1-2 and 4-5). The plurality of frozen meals of Shabbycreek NPL are thus construed to be a “modular meal system” since they are made and stored simultaneously, where the end user can choose a desired meal from the plurality of meals (page 5 “Final notes”). When the user is ready to cook the lasagna, the tray is covered with aluminum foil and baked [in a conventional oven] for 35 minutes at 375 degrees (page 2). Likewise for the broccoli cheddar chicken pasta bake, the modular meal is baked in a conventional oven at 350 degrees for 30-40 minutes (page 3).
Shabbycreek NPL teaches heating in a conventional oven as recited above, but does not teach the limitation of “each of the sauce components in combination with a configuration and/or formulation of each of the meal components, respectively, provides a heating efficiency so that each of the frozen modular meal components reaches at least 165oF when heated from frozen with the other of the frozen modular meal components in a conventional oven for a same heating time selected from a heating time range of from about 20 minutes to about 60 minutes and at a same heating temperature selected from a heating temperature range of about 350oF to about 450oF.”
Vischer teaches packaging for food in which a plurality of frozen food items are contained in a single container for simultaneous defrosting and cooking and/or heating in a single high temperature operation (column 1 lines 10-15), where the plurality of frozen food items are held within a tray 10 (figures 1-2), where different food items are prepared differently in order to ensure that all items reach the desired serving temperature, and are properly cooked, within a “minimum time for defrosting, heating and cooking” (column 2 lines 4-13 and 27-39; column 2 line 71 to column 3 line 2). Preparation methods include varying degrees of precooking, the physical shape and size, and configuration of the individual portions of food within the container. The features above appear to overlap with those disclosed by applicant to contribute to a “heating efficiency”.
Although Vischer does not specifically teach that the different foods are part of different modular meal components (i.e., in different trays), the reference still teaches the concept of adjusting the characteristics of the packaging and/or contained foods in order to ensure each of the different foods reach a desired serving temperature within a single heating operation. The different foods within the different compartments are analogous to the different modular meal components of Shabbycreek NPL.
Further, Heattransfer NPL is relied on as evidence to show that heat transferred from one system to another is given by the equation Q = m x c x ∆T (page 1), where Q is the heat supplied to the system, m is the mass the of system, c is the specific heat capacity of the system and ∆T is the change in temperature of the system. The equation can be rearranged to ∆T = Q / (m x c) to determine a change of temperature in the system based on heat supplied, mass, and specific heat capacity of the system. If Q is known (i.e., the amount of energy provided by the conventional oven at the claimed temperature for the claimed duration), then one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the mass (amount of food) and specific heat capacity (type and water content of food) of the system can be adjusted to obtain a desired temperature change (i.e., ∆T) therein.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the modular meal system of Shabbycreek NPL such that “each of the sauce components in combination with a configuration and/or formulation of each of the meal components, respectively, provides a heating efficiency…a heat temperature range of about 350oF to about 450oF” as claimed since controlling parameters of the package and contents, such that different components simultaneously obtain a desired serving temperature within a single heating cycle is acknowledged by the prior art, and therefore to similarly ensure optimal heating and cooking of all components during the same heating process, thereby enhancing user convenience, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and since the claimed values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to the factors disclosed by Vischer, the type of heating, and the parameters of the heat transfer equation stated above.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites the last clause of claim 21 with a narrower heating duration of about 25-40 minutes and heating temperature of about 350-425oF. The combination applied to claim 21 renders the limitation of claim 22 obvious for the same reasons stated for said claim. Additionally, there is no evidence of record indicating criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed duration.
Regarding claim 24, the combination applied to claim 21 does not specify that at least one of the first and second modular meal components includes 3-6 servings of the meal component. However, Shabbycreek NPL teaches a meal component can make multiple meals e.g., “easy lasagna recipe” (page 2), discloses the prepared meals are meant to feed a family (pages 1 and 5), and does not particularly limit the number of servings in each modular meal component (see whole document).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Shabbycreek NPL such that at least one of the modular meal components includes the claimed number of servings in order to provide a sufficient amount of the meal component for multiple consumers e.g., a family, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, to provide convenience such that a user does not need to open multiple packages of the same component, and since food packages comprising multiple servings are known in the art.
Regarding claim 25, the combination applied to claim 21 does not specify that each of the modular meal components includes 3-6 servings of the meal component.
However, the modification applied to claim 24 renders obvious providing 3-6 servings for at least one of the meal components. It would have been further obvious to provide the same number of servings for each of the components for the same reasons stated for claim 24, and further based on the needs/preferences of the intended consumers.
Regarding claim 27, the claim recites alternatives. For the sake of examination, the limitation “the meal component comprises the starch component…pasta” is chosen.
Shabbycreek NPL teaches lasagna (pasta) as stated for claim 21.
Regarding claim 28, Shabbycreek NPL teaches the meal and sauce components of the first and second modular meal components are precooked (page 1 second paragraph; page 5 first paragraph).
Regarding claim 29, Shabbycreek NPL as applied to claim 21 does not specify the dimensions of the tray.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the size of the tray to have the claimed dimensions since the prior art already recognizes adjusting the configuration of the tray to obtain desired heating characteristics as taught by Vischer, since there is no evidence of record indicating criticality or unexpected results, since the claimed values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as providing sufficient space for a desired number of servings, desired amount of packaging material used and associated material cost, and since the “Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”, see MPEP 2144.04 IV.A.
Regarding claim 39, Shabbycreek NPL does not teach greater than 0 wt% to 100 wt% of the sauce component is absorbed by the meal component prior to freezing. However, the reference teaches combining the respective meal components and sauces prior to cooking and freezing (see whole document, particularly recipes on pages 2-4). Absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected a non-zero percentage of the sauce to be absorbed by the respective meal components.
Regarding claim 41, Shabbycreek NPL teaches each of the frozen meal components comprise a variety of wet ingredients (sauce) along with the respective meal component (e.g., lasagna noodles).
While the reference does not explicitly teach the claimed weight ratio of respective components to sauce, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Shabbycreek NPL to use the claimed ratio of meal component to sauce since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and since the claimed values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as dietary preference and/or restrictions, and desired flavor, texture/mouthfeel and nutritional profile.
Applicant has not shown sufficient evidence that the claimed ingredients and amounts produces new, unexpected, and useful function, see In re Levin, 84 U.S.P.Q. 232, 234 (C.C.P.A. 1950). Id. at 7. The following passage is quoted from Levin.
“This court has taken the position that new recipes or formulas for cooking food which involve the addition or elimination of common ingredients, or for treating them in ways which differ from the former practice, do not amount to invention merely because it is not disclosed that, in the constantly developing art of preparing food, no one else ever did the particular thing upon which the applicant asserts his right to a patent. In all such cases, there is nothing patentable unless the applicant by a proper showing further establishes a coaction or cooperative relationship between the selected ingredients which produces a new, unexpected, and useful function. In re White, 39 F.2d 974, 17 C.C.P.A., Patents, 956; In re Mason et al., 156 F.2d 189, 33 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1144.”
Regarding claim 42, Shabbycreek NPL teaches aluminum containers (page 1 first paragraph and figure), but does not specify that the tray of each of the first and second frozen modular meal components are aluminum.
Vischer teaches the tray is formed of a “suitable material having good heat transfer characteristics such, for example, as aluminum” (column 2 lines 53-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Shabbycreek NPL to use aluminum trays for the first and second modular meal components since the prior art recognizes storing meal components in such materials, where the material is known to have desirable heat conduction properties, and can therefore be used to control “heating efficiency” as claimed, to facilitate heat transfer from the oven to the food components, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and to use materials that are well known and commonly employed in the food packaging art.
Regarding claim 43, the combination applied to claim 21 teaches configuring and/or formulating each of the meal components and sauce such that each of the modular meal components reaches at least 165oF when heated from frozen with the other respective modular meal component.
Regarding the heating occurring without stirring the modular meal components or rotating the modular meal components in the conventional oven, Shabbycreek NPL teaches the modular food components e.g., lasagna or cheeseburger casserole, are heated in the oven, and does not recite or otherwise indicate mixing or rotating the components in the oven (pages 2-3).
Likewise, Vischer makes no mention of requiring stirring or rotating when heating (see whole document).
Claims 26, 30-36 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shabbycreek NPL in view of Vischer as applied to claims 21-22, 24-25 and 27-29 above, and further in view of Shaw et al. (US 9,850,056 B2).
Regarding claim 26, the combination applied to claim 21 does not teach the modular meal components comprise a flexible film that hermetically seals the meal component and the sauce component within the tray.
Shaw et al. teaches an ovenable package for a food product (abstract), the package comprising a tray 10 and lidding film 20 (figures 1-2), where food is placed into the tray and the film is sealed to the tray (column 4 lines 28-45). The reference teaches that it is known to attach the lidding film to the rim of the tray, but the failure rate of said package type is relatively high and can separate from the tray before use, causing issues such as spoilage of the contents, and further teaches the film can shred when a user tries to remove the film from the tray (column 1 lines 30-39). The package of Shaw et al. ensures an airtight seal until the film is first opened, thereby protecting the contents of the tray from the environment (column 5 lines 40-43), provides evidence of tampering (column 6 lines 34-35), and allows the package to be opened prior to heating (column 6 line 64-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Shabbycreek NPL to include a flexible film forming a hermetic seal since the reference already contemplates a cover (figures) but does not specify a hermetic seal, for the advantages taught by Shaw et al., since the prior art acknowledges that films can be sealed to the tray, and therefore to combine prior art elements according to know methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 30, the combination applied to claim 21 teaches a modular meal system. The same combination is applied to claim 30 and would have been obvious for the same reasons. The difference between the claims is that claim 30 further recites a third modular frozen meal component comprising the same features as recited for the first and second modular meal components, each modular meal component comprising a flexible film that hermetically seals the meal component and the sauce in the tray, and the heating time period within about 20-40 minutes.
With respect to the third frozen modular meal component, Shabbycreek NPL teaches the system includes additional frozen meal components comprising additional meal components in sauces (pages 2-4 “easy chili recipe”, “easy cheeseburger casserole”, “tex mex chicken casserole”, and “basic chicken casserole recipe”).
Shabbycreek NPL does not teach the modular meal components comprise a flexible film that hermetically seals the meal component and the sauce component within the tray. However, the combination applied to claim 26 teaches said feature. The same combination is applied to claim 30 and would have been obvious for the same reasons.
Regarding the heating time period and heating temperatures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the heating time and temperature for the same reasons stated for claims 21 and 22.
Regarding claim 31, the claim recites the last clause of claim 30 with a narrower heating duration of about 25-35 minutes and heating temperature of about 375-425oF. The combination applied to claim 21 (and by extension claim 30) renders the limitation of claim 31 obvious for the same reasons stated for said claim. Additionally, there is no evidence of record indicating criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed duration and temperature.
Regarding claim 32, Shabbycreek NPL teaches the first modular meal component comprises a starch component including pasta, the second modular meal component comprises a vegetable component including broccoli, and the third modular meal component comprises a protein component including beef (pages 2-3).
Regarding claims 33-34, Shabbycreek NPL as applied to claim 30 does not specify that the modular meal components include 3-6 servings of the meal component. However, the modification applied to claim 24 renders obvious providing 3-6 servings for at least one of the meal components. It would have been further obvious to provide the same number of servings for each of the components for the same reasons stated for claim 24, and further based on the needs/preferences of the intended consumers.
Regarding claim 35, Shabbycreek NPL teaches the meal and sauce components of the first, second and third modular meal components are precooked (page 1 second paragraph; page 5 first paragraph).
Regarding claim 36, Shabbycreek NPL as applied to claim 30 does not specify the dimensions of the tray.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the s tray to have the claimed dimensions for the same reasons stated for claim 29.
Regarding claim 40, Shabbycreek NPL does not teach greater than 0 wt% to 100 wt% of the sauce component is absorbed by the meal component prior to freezing. However, the reference teaches combining the respective meal components and sauces prior to cooking and freezing (see whole document, particularly recipes on pages 2-4). Absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected a non-zero percentage of the sauce to be absorbed by the respective meal components.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shabbycreek NPL in view of Vischer and Shaw et al. as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Lasagna NPL.
Regarding claim 38, the combination applied to claim 30 does not teach at least one frozen modular meal component includes fat in an amount less than or equal to 11 g per USDA serving.
Lasagna NPL teaches a method for making a “low fat” lasagna for those who are “trying to eat light” (page 1), where the lasagna includes reduced fat ingredients (pages 3-4) and comprises less than 11 grams of fat per serving (page 7 “nutrition”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the lasagna of Shabbycreek NPL such that the frozen modular meal component contains the claimed amount of fat since the prior art recognizes “low fat” lasagnas can be produced by adjusting the amount and type of ingredients, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and since the claimed values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as dietary preference and/or restrictions, and desired flavor, texture/mouthfeel and nutritional profile.
Response to Amendment
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 7/7/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 21-22, 24-36, and 38-41 based upon 35 USC 103 as set forth in the last Office action because:
The declaration states an important aspect of the meal system is that the consumer could place each of the meal components in a conventional oven set at a particular temperature and cook the meal components for the same amount of time, regardless of the type of food, without over or undercooking each component.
The declaration states that different variables had to be taken into consideration, and cooking a single frozen food item in a conventional oven is different from cooking multiple frozen food items together. Applicant provides data to show that cooking potatoes alone led to a rapid increase in temperature above the desired 165-168oF minimum temperature, within 20 minutes. Applicant compares the data to a tray of potatoes cooked at the same time as two trays of 550 grams of ice, and 700 grams, respectively. The data shows temperature of the potatoes was significantly lower in the presence of additional food items, as well as the mass of additional food items.
The declaration states “generally speaking, the larger the meal component, the more time it will take to heat the meal component to food safe temperatures”, and therefore Applicant had to take many factors into consideration when formulating each meal component. The factors include particular combinations of frozen meal components in both gas and electric ovens, configuration, mass, formulation, etc.
The arguments above are not persuasive since Applicant has not effectively shown evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the argued features. The prior art already recognizes heating different food components simultaneously, where the components are configured and/or formulated to reach a desired serving temperature at the same time within the same heating cycle as taught by Vischer (column 2 lines 4-13 and 27-39; column 2 line 71 to column 3 line 2). Preparation methods include varying degrees of precooking, the physical shape and size, and configuration of the individual portions of food within the container. The features above appear to overlap with those disclosed by applicant to contribute to a “heating efficiency”. While Vischer does not recite the food components being packaged separately into first, second, third component, etc., the concept of preparing and storing multiple frozen meal components is taught by Shabbycreek NPL. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantage of configuring/formulating each meal component of Shabbycreek NPL such that said components are simultaneously heated to a desired temperature when cooked in a single heating cycle.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the features argued by Applicant based on the heat transfer equation Q = m x c x ∆T (page 1) as stated for claim 1. The equation can be rearranged to ∆T = Q / (m x c) to determine a change of temperature in the system based on heat supplied, mass, and specific heat capacity of the system. If Q is known (i.e., the amount of energy provided by the conventional oven at the claimed temperature for the claimed duration), then one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the mass (amount of food) and specific heat capacity (type and water content of food) of the system can be adjusted to obtain a desired temperature change (i.e., ∆T) therein. The equation can also be used to explain why heating a single meal component in an oven is not the same as heating multiple meal components. That is, less mass and/or lower specific heat capacity of the system would necessarily cause more of the oven’s total energy to be transferred into said mass, necessarily resulting in a greater final temperature of said mass, and vice versa. It would have been within the capability of a skilled artisan to modify features such as amount of food and type of food to obtain the desired simultaneous cooking feature of Vischer.
Additionally, Applicant’s arguments and data are not commensurate in scope with the claimed method. The inventive feature is argued to be a specific combination of features of the modular meal components that result in simultaneous heating as claimed, the features depending on a variety of factors. However, Applicant’s claims only require a tray, generic meal components, and generic sauce components placed in the tray prior to freezing. The presented data only compares a single embodiment (potatoes alone, or potatoes with ice) of a large variety of potential embodiments. It is not clear if the results of the declaration (figure 5 and table 7) are observed across all combinations encompassed by the claims. It is also unclear if the results are observed with additional meal components that are not simply trays of ice. It is also unclear how the claimed method accounts for well known variances in “conventional ovens”, such as gas or electric as acknowledged by Applicant, or other features such as variations in oven configuration and power output.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is no suggestion in Shabbycreek NPL of cooking more than one of the frozen meals at the same time, and there is no reason to modify Shabbycreek NPL’s meals as suggested in the Office Action.
This is not persuasive since the prior art recognizes the advantage of heating different foods in the same cycle such that the foods are fully prepared at the same time as taught by Vischer. While Shabbycreek does not explicitly recite that the different foods are intended to be heated simultaneously, it would have been well within the capability of a skilled artisan to select multiple types of food components to be served at the same meal e.g., large gatherings and special occasions. In such cases, preparing a variety of meal components such that all components can be cooked and finished simultaneously would provide the advantage of convenience, reduced overall time spent cooking, and reduced margin of error with respect to optimal heating/cooking.
Applicant argues that each of the sauce components in combination with a configuration and/or formulation of the first and second modular meal components provide a heating efficiency as claimed when heated together from frozen in a conventional oven at the same temperature and duration.
This is not persuasive since there is no evidence to show that the argued feature yields unexpected results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that heat transfer into a system depends on the mass and specific heat capacity of the thereof as explained above. The change in temperature of the system at a given total energy provided by the oven can be controlled by increasing or decreasing the amount and type of food present. With respect to the food type, a component having high water content would necessarily absorb more heat than one having low water content, and overall specific heat capacity can be controlled based on the heat capacity of each ingredient. Similarly, the composition of the sauce can be controlled to absorb a desired amount of energy. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the above factors through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain a variety of different modular meal components that can be heated together from frozen and simultaneously achieve a desired temperature.
Applicant argues the meal components and sauces themselves had to be configured and/or formulated to provide desired heating efficiency in a wide range of conventional ovens as stated in the Vasile declaration.
This is not persuasive for the same reasons stated for the declaration above. The alleged results are expected by the prior art, particularly since Vischer already teaches adjusting characteristics of the foods used in order to achieve simultaneous heating, and since the relationship between heat transferred into a system and the components of that system is defined and predictable. Additionally, it is not clear from the submitted data if the observed results are also observed in other embodiments encompassed by the claimed method.
Applicant’s argument against Stevenson has been fully considered, but the reference is not relied upon.
Applicant argues against Shaw and Lasagna NPL, stating the references do not teach the argued features.
This is not persuasive since the references are not relied on to teach the argued features, where said features are rendered obvious for the reasons stated above. Rather, the references are relied on to show that food containers are known to be hermetically sealed by flexible films for preservation (Shaw) and the fat content of lasagna (Lasagna NPL).
Applicant’s arguments against the dependent claims are not persuasive for the same reasons stated above.
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 on (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.
/B.K/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792