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 .
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”). Regarding the trays having a single cavity, Shabbycreek NPL teaches the containers are aluminum pans (page 1; figure 1). The pans are known to comprise a single cavity.
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 before the effective filing date of the claimed 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed 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 and 30-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shabbycreek NPL in view of Vischer as applied to claim 21 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the s tray to have the claimed dimensions for the same reasons stated for claim 29.
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 before the effective filing date of the claimed 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.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shabbycreek NPL in view of Vischer as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Jeffcoat et al. (US 2002/0090446 A1). Heattransfer NPL is relied on as evidence.
Regarding claim 44, the combination applied to claims 21 teaches a modular meal system as recite for said claim. The same combination is applied to claim 44 and would have been obvious for the same reasons.
The difference between the claims is that claim 44 further recites each sauce component has a different formulation from the other of the sauce components, the formulation including one or more of a density, an amount of starch, an amount of saturated fat, an amount of unsaturated fat, a total fat content, a total sugar content, a total solids content, and viscosity.
Shabbycreek NPL teaches a plurality of different dishes comprising different sauces e.g., “meat marinara,” “easy cheeseburger casserole,” “text mex chicken casserole,” etc. (pages 2-4). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect different types of sauces to have different formulations of starches, fats, sugars, solids, and viscosities based on known factors such as flavor, texture/mouthfeel, aroma, and nutritional profile.
Jeffcoat et al. teaches thickening compositions of foodstuffs by including an effective amount of stabilized waxy potato starch (abstract), where a sauce can be formulated with said starch to have “improved heat penetration during retorting” (paragraph 86). The teaching indicates to one of ordinary skill that the art recognizes sauce formulations including particular types of starches can be used to modify heat transfer characteristics of the sauce.
Further, the cited prior art suggests to one of ordinary skill that heat transfer characteristics can be controlled by adjusting the heat capacity of the system based on the heat transfer equation as explained for claims 21 and 29, where different substances are recognized to have different specific heat capacities. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that different sauces having different formulations, and therefore overall heat capacities, would similarly have different heat transfer characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shabbycreek NPL to configure and/or formulate the amount of starch in the first and second sauce components in order to similarly control heating of each modular meal component, thereby allowing each component to complete cooking within the same cooking step as taught by Vischer.
Response to Amendment
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 5/26/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 21-22, 24-25, 27-29, 39, and 41-43 based upon 35 USC 103 as set forth in the last Office action because:
Applicant argues on pages 2-3 that Vischer teaches the gravy or sauces are frozen in the form of small, separate pellets in order to avoid problems caused by the gravy forming a block of ice with the meat, whereas the claimed invention uses the sauce to improve or reduce the heating efficiency of the meal component, which allows for a large variety of modular meal components that can be cooked from frozen in the same amount of time at the same temperature. Applicant argues the ingredients of each sauce component are carefully considered so the meal component would have a desired heating efficiency, where properties of the sauce were found to contribute to heating efficiency and said properties can be adjusted to provide a desired heating rate. Applicant argues the importance of viscosity of the sauce component and its impact on heat conduction to the meal component. Applicant argues on page 4 that increasing the composition of fat, sugar and/or solids affects heat conductivity and can be selected to provide desired heating efficiency.
This is not persuasive since Vischer is relied on to show that different food items can be formulated/prepared differently in order to ensure that all items reach the desired serving temperature during a single cooking operation. While the reference teaches issues with gravy forming a block of ice, there is no indication that the same effect is observed with other types of sauces. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the formulation of the sauce can have an impact on heating characteristics. For example, a formulation comprising high water content would necessarily absorb more energy during heating than a lower water content formulation. Likewise, viscosity is expected to affect how the sauce coats the food item. The type of fats, total fat content, solids content, etc. are well-understood to impact viscosity of a food product. Therefore, adjusting sauce formulation to control heating characteristics would have been expected by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Further, the effect of sauce formulation is predictable in view of Heattransfer NPL based on the heat transfer equation Q = m x c x ∆T (page 1) as stated for claim 21. 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. Since the amount of heat transferred into a system is defined by the specific heat capacity of the system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that heating characteristics of a food product can be controlled by adjusting the formulation to obtain a desired increased or decreased overall heat capacity.
Additionally, independent claims 21 and 30 as currently drafted do not require formulation based on viscosity. Regarding new claim 44, formulating the sauce to obtain particular characteristics does not appear to yield unexpected results as explained above.
Applicant argues on page 4 that the sauce component is not frozen before adding to the tray in order to insulate the meal component from heat and lowering the heating efficiency of the meal component, where the amount, viscosity, and location of the sauce can modulate the heating time of the meal component by improving heating efficiency.
This is not persuasive for the same reasons stated above. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered the argued feature to yield unexpected results. Transfer of heat into a material is defined as explained for claim 21, and includes mass of the system, where one of ordinary skill would have been able to predict the effects of formulation based on known associations with the specific heat of the components. Since the heat transfer can be predicted, and since the prior art recognizes wanting different food components of a meal to simultaneously reach a serving temperature using a single cooking step as taught by Vischer, one of ordinary skill would have subjected the sauce formulation to routine experimentation and optimization based on desired heating characteristics.
Applicant argues on pages 5-6 that example 5 of the application illustrates differing heating efficiency depending on placement of the sauce component, the composition of the meal component, and the properties of the sauce itself. Applicant argues countless tests pertaining to sauce formulation and placement were conducted to achieve uniform heating when sauce is added to the tray in fluid form and together with the meal component.
This is not persuasive since example 5 and cited tables do not indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the results are unexpected. Heating characteristics can be predicted and is known to vary based on the amount and heat capacity of the material. Conducting a number of tests to obtain desired heating characteristics amounts of routine experimentation and optimization.
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 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 that Vischer does not contemplate formulations for two or more different food products in trays that enable them to be heated together at the same time and same temperature, and is instead concerned with heating a food located within a single tray, as opposed to claimed features.
This is not persuasive since Vischer teaches adjusting characteristics of different foods 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 as explained for the declaration above. While heating multiple trays of different foods is not explicitly taught, Vischer nonetheless suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art that different foods can be formulated and/or configured to obtain desired heating characteristics and complete heating within the same heating step. Similarly, 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 on pages 11-12 that Vischer teaches gravy freezes solid during the freezing operation and causes the meat to be frozen into a solid block of ice, and therefore provides the gravy or sauces in the form of frozen separate pellets. This is in contrast to the claims which add the sauce component in fluid form prior to freezing, and the respective meal components and sauce components are in a single cavity of the respective trays.
This is not persuasive since Shabbycreek NPL already teaches adding liquid sauce to the meal components prior to freezing as stated for claim 21. While Vischer teaches issues with gravy freezing into ice blocks, there is no indication that this an issue for all sauces. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of determining the appropriate formulation for a sauce that would obtain desired heating characteristics as explained in the response to the declaration above.
Applicant argues on pages 12-13 inventors found that the sauce was a very important component of the modular meal components and could be advantageously used to increase or decrease heating efficiency, which enables creation of a wide variety of modular meal components that can be heated together from frozen in the same amount of time and at the same temperature. Applicant argues the ingredients of each sauce component were carefully considered to achieve the desired heating efficiency, where properties that contribute to heating efficiency can be adjusted to provide desired heating rate of each component, and Vischer would not lead one of ordinary skill to the claimed invention.
This is not persuasive since the argued features amount to routine experimentation and optimization as explained in the response to the declaration above. The prior art recognizes different meals comprising respective liquid sauce components and meal components into single cavity trays and freezing as taught by Shabbycreek NPL and the formulation/configuration of the components can be controlled based on desired heating as taught by Vischer. Energy transfer into a system is based on the specific heat capacity and mass of the system. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine the appropriate substances and amounts to obtain a desired overall heat capacity of the sauce such that heat transfer into the food is increased or decreased.
Applicant argues on page 13 that Neither Shabbycreek NPL nor Vischer teach heating more than one tray of food at a time, and therefore fails to teach the claimed features.
This is not persuasive since the claims are directed to a system, where heating multiple trays of food at a time is a preferred method of use. Regardless, the cited prior art suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art that the formulation and/or configuration of food components and sauces in a single cavity container can be adjusted in order to obtain desired heating characteristics of e.g., heat transfer, as explained above.
Applicant argues on page 13 that new claim 44 recites multiple sauce components having different formulations from each other, and the cited references do not teach said feature.
This is not persuasive since Shabbycreek NPL teaches producing a plurality of different meals, each meal having a sauce that is formulated differently from the others as stated for claim 21. The cited prior art suggests to one of ordinary skill that the formulation and/or configuration of food components can be controlled to obtain desired heating characteristics, thereby allowing different foods to be simultaneously heated to a desired temperature. Modification of the various sauces of Shabbycreek NPL to comprise different formulations of density, an amount of starch, etc. such that the simultaneous heating of different foods is obtained would have been within the level of predictability of a skilled artisan.
Further, the instant rejection relies on Jeffcoat et al. to show that the prior art recognizes varying starch formulation of sauce causes changes in heat transfer characteristics.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Virtanen (US 2007/0269556 A1) teaches thickening sauces to obtain a desired viscosity (abstract), where the sauce is frozen and the characteristics of the sauce is such that, in connection with heating, the frozen mixture defrosts and gets thickened in the free space at the bottom of the closed container. At least one of the following components is included in the other above-mentioned sauce components: liquid, fat, oil, spices, or salt (paragraph 65).
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 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
Prosecution Insights