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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 11, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Those objections and rejections that are not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-12, 15-18 and 20 are currently pending and rejected.
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 8-12, 15, 16 and 20 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.
Claim 8 recites, “wherein at least one side wall includes a side wall vent opening.” (see line 14). It is not clear whether the recited at least one side wall is one sidewall of the plurality of side walls as recited on lines 4 and 6 or another side wall different from the plurality of side walls.
Claims 9-12, 15 and 16 are rejected based on their dependence to a rejected claim.
Claim 20 recites, “the flap having a flap vent opening such that at least one of the side vent opening, and the flap vent opening are substantially aligned…” (see lines 3-4). This limitation is unclear with respect to what is “at least one of” the side vent opening and the flap vent opening aligned with.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neff (US 20100072197) in view of Cole (US 20110132903).
Regarding claim 1, Neff teaches a microwavable package for a comestible (see the abstract), the microwavable package comprising:
a bottom wall, the bottom wall having a bottom susceptor layer having a first pattern percentage of susceptor material to non-susceptor material (see figure 1 and 3, item 200 and 240). At paragraph 41, Neff teaches that the susceptors on all surfaces can be 5-100% patterned and further teaches susceptor 240, on the bottom wall, can be 40-60% patterned, thus teaching a first pattern percentage of susceptor to non-susceptor material.
Neff further teaches a top wall including a top wall susceptor having a second pattern percentage of susceptor material to non-susceptor material (see figure 3, item 202, 242 and paragraph 41); and
at least one side wall positioned between the bottom wall and the top wall and coupled to the bottom wall, the at least one side wall having a side wall susceptor having a third pattern percentage of susceptor material to non-susceptor material (see figure 3, item 212,243 and paragraph 41), the at least one side wall, bottom wall, and top wall generally surrounding a comestible cooking space (see figure 3, item 340).
Regarding the limitation of, wherein the third pattern percentage is less than the first and second pattern percentages, Neff teaches that the sidewall susceptor can be 5% patterned or be substantially continuous, while the first pattern percentage on the bottom susceptor can be 100% patterned or 40-60% patterned and the second pattern percentage of the top wall can 5-100% patterned and where the surfaces can have the same or different patterns, thus teaching and suggesting that the third pattern percentage is less than the first and second pattern percentage (see paragraph 41).
Claim 1 differs from Neff in specifically reciting the bottom wall defining a vent opening extending through the bottom wall to an exterior of the microwave package.
However, Cole teaches a microwavable package for a comestible comprising a bottom and multiple side walls, each of which comprise a microwave susceptor (see paragraph 23). Cole further teaches that the base 102 can include one or more venting apertures (see figure 1A, item 124, 126; figure 1D) for carrying moisture away from the food item (see paragraph 28) and to therefore allow the food to be more effectively browned and/or crisped (see paragraph 31)
To therefore modify Neff and to also include holes on the bottom wall, as taught by Cole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of also providing venting to the package during microwave heating so as to provide the requisite degree of browning and crisping to the food.
To therefore modify Neff and to also include holes on the bottom wall, as taught by Hopkins would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of also providing venting to the package during microwave heating so as to provide the requisite degree of browning and crisping to the food.
Regarding claim 2, Neff teaches that the first and second pattern percentages can be 100% (see paragraph 41) and that the sidewall pattern percentage can be less than 90% for controlling the degree of heating, such as 5% (see paragraph 41-42).
Regarding claim 6, Neff discloses that the bottom wall is generally rectangular (see figure 1) and includes corners, wherein at least a portion of the corners do not include susceptor material (see figure 3, where the susceptor 240 does not extend into corners; see also paragraph 28 which further teaches that the corners can be exposed in light of the clearance between the perimeter of the bottom wall and the perimeter of the susceptor).
Regarding claim 7, Neff’s top wall is seen to be separate from the bottom wall and the at least one side wall (see figure 5 and figure 8). The top wall would have been capable of being positioned within a perimeter of the at least one side wall. That is, this is seen to be an intended use limitation that the prior art would have been capable of performing, especially as the claim does not provide any further structural limitations for what results in the top wall being positioned within a perimeter of the at least one side wall.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above which relies on Neff (US 20100072197) as the primary reference, and in further view of Mast (US 20040238534, i.e. Mast534) and Davis (US 5726426).
Regarding claim 3, Neff teaches as shown in figure 1 and 4, the top wall is coupled to the at least one side wall (see figure 1, item 212), the top wall further including a flap (see figure 1, item 218, 220, 230).
Neff also teaches that additional surfaces can also have susceptors in addition to the ones that are specifically shown (see paragraph 32).
Claim 3 differs in specifically reciting, the flap including a flap susceptor.
However, Mast534 teaches a microwavable package comprising a lid (figure 8, item 58) with a flap, which flap has a susceptor material thereon (see figure 8, item 30 on the associated lid flaps 60). Mast534 also teaches providing that the flaps, sides and lid of the package can include a combination of susceptors for achieving the desired cooking result (see paragraph 52) and further teaches where the sidewalls of the base of the container can also have susceptors (see figure 5). Mast534 also teaches coupling of the flap to the at least one sidewall (see figure 9 and paragraph 54 which would have coupled the lid flap to the at least one sidewall).
Davis also teaches that both the container and lid can be made from the same microwave susceptor materials (see column 3, lines 25-53; column 4, lines 37-44 which teaches that the entirety of the container being made from a cut blank of susceptor material), such that the lid would also have had a flap comprising a flap susceptor (see figure 1, item 18) and which flap would also overlap a side wall
To therefore modify the combination and to provide a susceptor material on a flap of the lid of Neff would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for providing the requisite degree of heating and to provide a continuous but non-overlapping susceptor layer around the food for heating.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 and 3, above, and in further view of Calcagni (WO 9015514) and Hopkins (US 20070056962).
Regarding claim 4, the combination as applied to claim 3 teaches overlapping of a top wall flap having a susceptor with a side wall.
Claim 4 differs from the combination, as applied to claim 3, in specifically reciting that “the at least one side wall includes a side wall vent opening and the flap includes a flap vent opening such that the side wall vent opening and the flap vent opening are substantially aligned when the top wall is closed to surround the comestible cooking space.”
Calcagni teaches a microwavable package (see figure 5) which comprises a bottom wall (figure 5, item 84) with a microwave interactive material (see figure 5, item 84; page 8, lines 2-3) and a side wall (figure 5, item 36’) and which side wall comprises vent openings 74 (see page 7, lines 22-29; figure 7). Calcagni further teaches that the lid or top wall (figure 5, item 32’) also comprises a microwave interactive material (figure 5, item 84) and further comprises a flap (figure 5, item 38’) and which flap includes vent openings (figure 5, item 78) that are aligned with the openings of the side wall 36’ when closed (see figure 6 and 7). Calcagni teaches that this configuration is useful for controlling the accumulation and escape of vapor (see page 2, lines 13-16, 25-27).
Hopkins also teaches that at least one side wall includes a vent opening that is substantially aligned with vent openings on the flap of the lid (see figure 16, item 86 and paragraph 39). Hopkins teaches that providing this alignment can be useful for controlling the venting for browning and crisping (see paragraph 39).
It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination as applied to claim 3, in view of the teachings of Calcagni and Hopkins and to have provided vent openings on a flap of the top wall that is substantially aligned with a vent opening on a side wall, for the purpose of for the purpose of controlling the venting and thus crisping.
Regarding claim 5, in view of the flap as discussed above with respect to claim 4 being part of the top wall, the combination as applied to claim 4 also teaches that the top wall includes a top wall vent opening and the at least one side wall includes a side wall vent opening. It is additionally noted that Cole teaches at paragraph 28 that the side walls may also include one or more apertures for controlling the heating and venting (see paragraph28). Therefore, the combination teaches that the top wall includes a top wall vent opening and the at least one side wall includes a side wall vent opening.
Claim 5 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 1, which relies on Neff (US 20100072197) as the primary reference, and in further view of Daniels (US 4745249) and in further view of Young (US 5585027), Flautt (US 4268738) and Sadek (US 6359272).
Further regarding claim 5, if it could have been construed that the teachings of Calcagni and Hopkins did not specifically teach a top wall vent opening, then it is noted that Daniels teaches a microwavable package where the entirety of the interior of surface of the container can comprise a microwave interactive material (see column 3, lines 4-5; column 4, lines 45-47) and which package comprises a bottom wall with openings to the exterior of the package (see figure 3, item 32), and a top wall that also comprises vent openings (see figure 2 and 3, item 31) for controlling the cooking of the product (column 6, lines 1-11) while allowing venting of water vapor to prevent the food from becoming soggy (see column 3, lines 39-58; column 7, lines 35-50). To therefore modify the combination and to also include a top wall vent opening, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of preventing vaporized moisture from returning back onto the food to make the food unduly soggy.
Additionally, Young, Flautt and Sadek have only been relied on as further teachings that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided vent openings on the top wall, bottom wall and side walls of Neff’s package for the purpose of controlling microwave venting.
Young teaches microwave susceptors that can form a package having a top wall, side walls and a bottom wall (see figure 20 and column 3, lines 47-48), where the perforations 172 allow for venting steam away from the food product (see column 8, line 63 to column 9, line 6). Young is teaching and suggesting that the microwave susceptor can surround the food in view of figure 10 and 12. It would have been obvious that the bottom vent opening as taught by Young would have had a periphery.
Flautt also teaches containers which can comprise apertures that surround the food for venting and moisture removal based on the type of food to be cooked (see figure 3, item 51; column 8, line 65 to column 9, line 11) and which containers can comprise top, bottom and side walls (see figure 17; column 16, lines 5-26).
Sadek also teaches providing vent openings at the top and bottom walls of a microwavable susceptor package for venting moisture during heating for achieving the requisite degree of cooking (see figure 11, item 922, 950; see column 8, lines 2-6; column 10, lines 316). There would also have been vent openings on a plurality of side walls due to the slits as well as the bottom of the side walls providing an elevated surface for venting (see figure 3, item 310 and figure 10). Sadek also teaches that the number, size and location of apertures can vary with the food item and can be readily determined by one having ordinary skill in the art (see column 6, lines 9-12)
Since Young, Flautt and Sadek are also directed to microwaveable containers that can comprise susceptors, and further teach providing vent openings that can surround a food product from the top, bottom and sides, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided vent openings on Neff’s bottom wall, top wall and plurality of side walls for the purpose of providing the requisite degree of ventilation to the food.
Claims 8-12, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neff (US 20100072197) in view of Hoese (US 6781101) and in further view of Mast (US 20040238534, i.e. Mast534) and Davis (US 5726426) and in further view of Calcagni (WO 9015514) and Hopkins (US 20070056962) and in further view of Cole (US 20110132903).
Regarding claim 8, Neff teaches a microwavable package for a comestible, the microwavable package comprising: a bottom wall; a plurality of side walls extending from the bottom wall; a top wall forming a lid operably coupled to at least one of the plurality of side walls (see figure 4 item 202 coupled to item 243; see also figure 2 where the top wall is coupled to one of the side walls via cut lines 244, 246), the top wall, bottom wall, and plurality of side walls (figure 1, item 241, 243) generally surrounding a comestible cooking space (see figure 3 and 4).
There is a first hinge positioned adjacent the top wall to permit the top wall to be located a first distance from the bottom wall (see figure 4 and the opened top portion 202).
Claim 8 differs from Neff in specifically reciting a second hinge positioned adjacent the first hinge to permit the top wall to be located a second distance from the bottom wall, the second distance being smaller than the first distance.
Hoese teaches a microwaveable package with a top (figure 2, item 24) having a first hinge adjacent to the top wall (figure 1, item 80) and a second hinge adjacent to the first hinge (figure 1, 2, 4 and 5, item 82), which second hinge allows the top to be positioned at a smaller distance to the bottom wall than the distance allowed by the first hinge (see figure 5). Hoese teaches that this configuration allows for the crisping of the food by lowering the top closer to the surface of the food for cooking and crisping of the food (see column 4, lines 34-54).
Since Neff also desirably wants to microwave cook and crisp food, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Neff’s top wall to have a second hinge, as taught by Hoese for the purpose of allowing Neff’s top wall susceptor to be positioned closer to the food for additional crisping thereof.
Regarding the limitation of, “a flap coupled to the top wall,” Neff teaches as shown in figure 1 and 4, the top wall is coupled to the at least one side wall (see figure 1, item 212), the top wall further including a flap (see figure 1, item 218, 220, 230). Neff also teaches that additional surfaces can also have susceptors in addition to the ones that are specifically shown (see paragraph 32).
Claim 8 differs from the Neff/Hoese combination in specifically reciting, the flap including a flap susceptor.
However, Mast534 teaches a microwavable package comprising a lid (figure 8, item 58) with a flap, which flap has a susceptor material thereon (see figure 8, item 30 on the associated lid flaps 60). Mast534 also teaches providing that the flaps, sides and lid of the package can include a combination of susceptors for achieving the desired cooking result (see paragraph 52) and further teaches where the sidewalls of the base of the container can also have susceptors (see figure 5). Mast534 also teaches coupling of the flap to the at least one sidewall (see figure 9 and paragraph 54 which would have coupled the lid flap to the at least one sidewall).
Davis also teaches that both the container and lid can be made from the same microwave susceptor materials (see column 3, lines 25-53; column 4, lines 37-44 which teaches that the entirety of the container being made from a cut blank of susceptor material), such that the lid would also have had a flap comprising a flap susceptor (see figure 1, item 18) and which flap would also overlap a side wall
To therefore modify the combination and to provide a susceptor material on a flap of the lid of Neff would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for providing the requisite degree of heating and to provide a continuous but non-overlapping susceptor layer around the food for heating.
Regarding the limitation of, “wherein at least one side wall includes a side wall vent opening extending through the flap susceptor such that such that the side wall vent opening and the flap includes a flap vent opening are substantially aligned and provide for a passage from the comestible cooking space to an exterior of the microwave package to allow moisture to migrate therethrough when the top wall is closed to surround the cooking space,” it is noted that:
Calcagni teaches a microwavable package (see figure 5) which comprises a bottom wall (figure 5, item 84) with a microwave interactive material (see figure 5, item 84; page 8, lines 2-3) and a side wall (figure 5, item 36’) and which side wall comprises vent openings 74 (see page 7, lines 22-29; figure 7). Calcagni further teaches that the lid or top wall (figure 5, item 32’) also comprises a microwave interactive material (figure 5, item 84) and further comprises a flap (figure 5, item 38’) and which flap includes vent openings (figure 5, item 78) that are aligned with the openings of the side wall 36’ when closed (see figure 6 and 7). Calcagni teaches that this configuration is useful for controlling the accumulation and escape of vapor (see page 2, lines 13-16, 25-27).
Hopkins also teaches that at least one side wall includes a vent opening that is substantially aligned with vent openings on the flap of the lid (see figure 16, item 86 and paragraph 39). Hopkins teaches that providing this alignment can be useful for controlling the venting for browning and crisping (see paragraph 39).
It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Neff/Hoese/Mast534/Davis combination in view of the teachings of Calcagni and Hopkins and to have provided vent openings on a flap of the top wall that is substantially aligned with a vent opening on a side wall, for the purpose of for the purpose of controlling the venting and thus crisping.
Further regarding the flap vent opening extending through the flap susceptor, both Mast534 and Davis teach and suggests that the top lid flap comprise susceptor material and Calcagni and Hopkins teach providing an opening in a lid flap and a side wall, and which openings align with each other for allowing venting through said opening. Therefore, since the combination is suggesting a susceptor positioned on a lid flap for controlling heating and is also suggesting aligned apertures on the lid flap and a corresponding side wall, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the is suggesting providing a hole in the flap susceptor in order to overlap the vent opening in the flap with an aperture in the side wall for venting when the package is closed. Additionally however, Cole teaches that it has been conventional to provide apertures through susceptor surfaces (see figure 1A, 1C and 1D, item 124) and where there can be susceptors on the side walls (see figure 1A, item 108, 110; paragraph 23) and where the side walls can also include apertures (see paragraph 28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide an aperture through the flap susceptor of the flap as taught by Mast534 and Davis, as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design for the purpose of controlling the venting through the side wall as already desired by the combination.
Regarding claim 9, as shown in figure 4 of Neff and figure 2 of Hoese, the prior art teaches a portion of the top wall is removably separable from at least one of the plurality of side walls.
Regarding claim 10, Neff at figure 4, item 242 and Hoese at figure 2, item 84, both teach the top wall comprising a susceptor layer.
Regarding claim 11 , Neff teaches the bottom wall includes a bottom susceptor layer having a first pattern percentage of susceptor material to non-susceptor material, the top wall includes a top wall susceptor having a second pattern percentage of susceptor material to non-susceptor material (see figure 1, item 240, 242 and paragraph 41-42). Neff teaches that “the plurality of side walls” can have susceptors such as (figure 1, item 241 and 243) having a third pattern percentage (see paragraph 41-42). wherein the third pattern percentage is less than the first and second pattern percentages. Neff is also not limiting regarding the particular locations of the susceptors (paragraph 32).
Regarding the limitation of, wherein the third pattern percentage is less than the first and second pattern percentages, Neff teaches that the sidewall susceptor can be 5% patterned or be substantially continuous, while the first pattern percentage on the bottom susceptor can be 100% patterned or 40-60% patterned and the second pattern percentage of the top wall can 5-100% patterned and where the surfaces can have the same or different patterns, thus teaching and suggesting that the third pattern percentage is less than the first and second pattern percentage (see at least paragraph 41-42).
If it could have been construed that Neff did not specifically teach a plurality of side walls that surround a comestible that each include a side walls susceptor, then Hoese teaches that both the top wall, bottom wall and all the side walls can comprise a susceptor for providing additional crisping to the food (see column 13, lines 9-36), as does Cole (paragraph 23), such that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Neff to include susceptor material on each side wall for the purpose of achieving the requisite degree of crisping.
Regarding claim 12, Neff teaches that the first and second pattern percentages can be 100% (see paragraph 41) and that the sidewall pattern percentage can be less than 90% for controlling the degree of heating, such as 5% (see paragraph 41-42).
Further regarding claim 15, which recites “a vent positioned on at least one of the bottom wall, the top wall and the plurality of side walls,” Cole teaches a microwavable package for a comestible comprising a bottom and multiple side walls, each of which comprise a microwave susceptor (see paragraph 23). Cole further teaches that the base 102 can include one or more venting apertures (see figure 1A, item 124, 126; figure 1D) for carrying moisture away from the food item (see paragraph 28) and to therefore allow the food to be more effectively browned and/or crisped (see paragraph 31)
To therefore modify Neff and to also include holes on the bottom wall or the plurality of side walls, as taught by Cole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of also providing venting to the package during microwave heating so as to provide the requisite degree of browning and crisping to the food.
Regarding claim 16, Neff discloses that the bottom wall is generally rectangular (see figure 1) and includes corners, wherein at least a portion of the corners do not include susceptor material (see figure 3, where the susceptor 240 does not extend into corners; see also paragraph 28 which further teaches that the corners can be exposed in light of the clearance between the perimeter of the bottom wall and the perimeter of the susceptor).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neff (US 20100072197) in view of Cole (US 20110132903) and in further view of Young (US 5585027), Flautt (US 4268738), Sadek (US 6359272) and Daniels (US 4745249) and in further view of Uribe (US 20210070525).
Regarding claim 17, Neff teaches microwavable package for a comestible, the microwavable package comprising: a bottom wall; a plurality of side walls extending from the bottom wall (see figure 4, item 212, 206, 210, 218); a top wall forming a lid (figure 4, item 202) and the top wall, bottom wall, and plurality of side walls generally surrounding a comestible cooking space (see figure 3); and a susceptor material positioned on at least one of the bottom wall, top wall, and plurality of side walls facing the comestible cooking space (see figure 3, item 240, 241, 242, 243).
Claim 17 differs from Neff in specifically reciting that the bottom wall, the plurality of side walls and the top wall all comprise a vent opening extending through the bottom wall, the plurality of side walls and the top wall.
Cole teaches a microwavable package for a comestible comprising a bottom and multiple side walls, each of which comprise a microwave susceptor (see paragraph 23). Cole further teaches that the base 102 can include one or more venting apertures (see figure 1A, item 124, 126; figure 1D) for carrying moisture away from the food item (see paragraph 28) and to therefore allow the food to be more effectively browned and/or crisped (see paragraph 31)
Young teaches microwave susceptors that can form a package having a top wall, side walls and a bottom wall (see figure 20 and column 3, lines 47-48), where the perforations 172 allow for venting steam away from the food product (see column 8, line 63 to column 9, line 6). Young is teaching and suggesting that the microwave susceptor can surround the food in view of figure 10 and 12. It would have been obvious that the bottom vent opening as taught by Young would have had a periphery.
Flautt also teaches containers which can comprise apertures that surround the food for venting and moisture removal based on the type of food to be cooked (see figure 3, item 51; column 8, line 65 to column 9, line 11) and which containers can comprise top, bottom and side walls (see figure 17; column 16, lines 5-26).
Sadek also teaches providing vent openings at the top and bottom walls of a microwavable susceptor package for venting moisture during heating for achieving the requisite degree of cooking (see figure 11, item 922, 950; see column 8, lines 2-6; column 10, lines 316). There would also have been vent openings on a plurality of side walls due to the slits as well as the bottom of the side walls providing an elevated surface for venting (see figure 3, item 310 and figure 10). Sadek also teaches that the number, size and location of apertures can vary with the food item and can be readily determined by one having ordinary skill in the art (see column 6, lines 9-12).
Daniels teaches a microwavable package where the entirety of the interior of surface of the container can comprise a microwave interactive material (see column 3, lines 4-5; column 4, lines 45-47) and which package comprises a bottom wall with openings to the exterior of the package (see figure 3, item 32), and a top wall that also comprises vent openings (see figure 2 and 3, item 31) for controlling the cooking of the product (column 6, lines 1-11) while allowing venting of water vapor to prevent the food from becoming soggy (see column 3, lines 39-58; column 7, lines 35-50).
Since Young, Flautt, Sadek and Daniels are also directed to microwaveable containers that can comprise susceptors, and further teach providing vent openings that can surround a food product from the top, bottom and sides, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided vent openings on Neff’s bottom wall, top wall and plurality of side walls for the purpose of providing the requisite degree of ventilation to the food.
Claim 17 differs from the combination above, in specifically reciting, “an absorbent material positioned at the bottom wall, the absorbent material extending from the periphery to encircle and partially cover the bottom vent opening to allow moisture to migrate through the bottom vent opening to an exterior of the microwavable package.”
However, Uribe teaches a bottom wall comprising a vent opening extending through the bottom wall (see figure 15 and 16, item 326 and paragraph 62; page 7-8, claim 1; see also figure 8 and 9 and paragraph 54) and where there is an absorbent material positioned at the bottom wall (see figure 9, item 122 and paragraph 53, 54) and extending from the periphery and which absorbent material encircles and partially covers the bottom vent opening (see figure 9, item 122), for the purpose of absorbing grease and moisture exuded from the food during preparation (see paragraph 38, 54). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that bottom wall openings would have had a periphery and the absorbent layer as taught by Uribe would have encircled the openings and would have partially covered the openings since the absorbent layer is a permeable layer.
Since the prior art already teaches a vent opening on the bottom wall, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided an absorbent material positioned at the bottom wall and extending beyond a periphery and into the bottom vent opening for the purpose of absorbing grease and moisture exuded from the food during preparation.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 17 above, which relies on Neff (US 20100072197) as the primary reference, and in further view of Cole (US 20100012652, i.e. Cole652).
Regarding claim 18, it is initially noted that the combination as applied to claim 17 teaches a variety of different aperture densities for the package as a whole, and where the purpose of the apertures has been for providing ventilation of moisture and steam during cooking. In this regard, it is further noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have controlled the number of openings for the purpose of controlling the degree of ventilation.
Nonetheless, Cole652 teaches a microwave susceptor package (see paragraph 4) comprising apertures that can be from 2-50% of the overall area of the layer of microwave susceptor material or the insulating structure, such as 5%-50% (see paragraph 32 and 50). If 5%-50% of each of Neff’s susceptor surfaces had apertures there-through for ventilation purpose, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Cole would be suggesting that the apertures would have been at least 5%-50% of the outer surface area of Neff’s package.
To therefore modify the combination and use between 5-50% apertures as a percent of the total outer surface area would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of controlling the degree of ventilation through the package for achieving the desired cooking of the contents within the package.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 17 above, which relies on Neff (US 20100072197) as the primary reference, and in further view of Calcagni (WO 9015514) and Hopkins (US 20070056962).
Regarding claim 20, Neff teaches that the top wall includes a flap.
Claim 20 differs from the combination, as applied to claim 17 in specifically reciting, the flap having a flap vent opening such that at least one of the side vent opening, and the flap vent opening are substantially aligned when the top wall is closed to surround the comestible cooking space
Calcagni teaches a microwavable package (see figure 5) which comprises a bottom wall (figure 5, item 84) with a microwave interactive material (see figure 5, item 84; page 8, lines 2-3) and a side wall (figure 5, item 36’) and which side wall comprises vent openings 74 (see page 7, lines 22-29; figure 7). Calcagni further teaches that the lid or top wall (figure 5, item 32’) also comprises a microwave interactive material (figure 5, item 84) and further comprises a flap (figure 5, item 38’) and which flap includes vent openings (figure 5, item 78) that are aligned with the openings of the side wall 36’ when closed (see figure 6 and 7). Calcagni teaches that this configuration is useful for controlling the accumulation and escape of vapor (see page 2, lines 13-16, 25-27).
Hopkins also teaches that at least one side wall includes a vent opening that is substantially aligned with vent openings on the flap of the lid (see figure 16, item 86 and paragraph 39). Hopkins teaches that providing this alignment can be useful for controlling the venting for browning and crisping (see paragraph 39).
It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination in view of the teachings of Calcagni and Hopkins and to have provided vent openings on a flap of the top wall that is substantially aligned with a vent opening on a side wall, for the purpose of for the purpose of controlling the venting and thus crisping.
Claims 8-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoese (US 6781101) in view of Mast (US 20040238534, i.e. Mast534) and Davis (US 5726426) and in further view of Calcagni (WO 9015514) and Hopkins (US 20070056962) and in further view of Cole (US 20110132903).
Regarding claim 8, Hoese teaches a microwavable package for a comestible, the microwavable package comprising: a bottom wall (figure 2, item 90; figure 4, item 112); plurality of side walls (figure 1, item 12, 18, 20, 22; see figure 4, item 118) extending from the bottom wall; a top wall forming a lid operably coupled to at least one of the plurality of side walls, the top wall, bottom wall (see figure 2, item 24; figure 7, item 14), and plurality of side walls “generally” surrounding a comestible cooking space (see figure 4). Hoese teaches a microwaveable package with a top (figure 2, item 24) having a first hinge adjacent to the top wall (figure 1, item 80) and a second hinge adjacent to the first hinge (figure 1, 2, 4 and 5, item 82), which second hinge allows the top to be positioned at a smaller distance to the bottom wall than the distance allowed by the first hinge (see figure 5). Hoese teaches that this configuration allows for the crisping of the food by lowering the top closer to the surface of the food for cooking and crisping of the food (see column 4, lines 34-54).
Hoese teaches as shown in figure 2 and 7, the top wall is coupled to the at least one side wall, the top wall further including a flap (see figure 7, item 18, 22).
Hoese also teaches that additional surfaces can also have susceptors in addition to the ones that are specifically shown (see column 13, lines 9-12 and 32-36).
Claim 8 differs in specifically reciting, the flap including a flap susceptor and wherein at least one side wall includes a side wall vent opening and the flap includes a flap vent opening extending through the flap susceptor such that the side wall vent opening and the flap vent opening are substantially aligned and provide for a passage from the comestible cooking space to an exterior of the microwavable package to allow moisture to migrate therethrough, when the top wall is closed to surround the comestible cooking space.”
Regarding the flap including a flap susceptor:
However, Mast534 teaches a microwavable package comprising a lid (figure 8, item 58) with a flap, which flap has a susceptor material thereon (see figure 8, item 30 on the associated lid flaps 60). Mast534 also teaches providing that the flaps, sides and lid of the package can include a combination of susceptors for achieving the desired cooking result (see paragraph 52) and further teaches where the sidewalls of the base of the container can also have susceptors (see figure 5). Mast534 also teaches coupling of the flap to the at least one sidewall (see figure 9 and paragraph 54 which would have coupled the lid flap to the at least one sidewall).
Davis also teaches that both the container and lid can be made from the same microwave susceptor materials (see column 3, lines 25-53; column 4, lines 37-44 which teaches that the entirety of the container being made from a cut blank of susceptor material), such that the lid would also have had a flap comprising a flap susceptor (see figure 1, item 18) and which flap would also overlap a side wall
To therefore modify the combination and to provide a susceptor material on a flap of the lid of Hoese would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for providing the requisite degree of heating and to provide a continuous susceptor layer around desired portions of the package surrounding the food for heating.
Regarding the limitation of, “wherein at least one side wall includes a side wall vent opening extending through the flap susceptor such that such that the side wall vent opening and the flap includes a flap vent opening are substantially aligned and provide for a passage from the comestible cooking space to an exterior of the microwave package to allow moisture to migrate therethrough when the top wall is closed to surround the cooking space,” it is noted that:
Calcagni teaches a microwavable package (see figure 5) which comprises a bottom wall (figure 5, item 84) with a microwave interactive material (see figure 5, item 84; page 8, lines 2-3) and a side wall (figure 5, item 36’) and which side wall comprises vent openings 74 (see page 7, lines 22-29; figure 7). Calcagni further teaches that the lid or top wall (figure 5, item 32’) also comprises a microwave interactive material (figure 5, item 84) and further comprises a flap (figure 5, item 38’) and which flap includes vent openings (figure 5, item 78) that are aligned with the openings of the side wall 36’ when closed (see figure 6 and 7). Calcagni teaches that this configuration is useful for controlling the accumulation and escape of vapor (see page 2, lines 13-16, 25-27).
Hopkins also teaches that at least one side wall includes a vent opening that is substantially aligned with vent openings on the flap of the lid (see figure 16, item 86 and paragraph 39). Hopkins teaches that providing this alignment can be useful for controlling the venting for browning and crisping (see paragraph 39).
It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hoese in view of the teachings of Calcagni and Hopkins and to have provided vent openings on a flap of the top wall that is substantially aligned with a vent opening on a side wall, for the purpose of for the purpose of controlling the venting and thus crisping.
Further regarding the flap vent opening extending through the flap susceptor, both Mast534 and Davis teach and suggests that the top lid flap comprise susceptor material and Calcagni and Hopkins teach providing an opening in a lid flap and a side wall, and which openings align with each other for allowing venting through said opening. Therefore, since the combination is suggesting a susceptor positioned on a lid flap for controlling heating and is also suggesting aligned apertures on the lid flap and a corresponding side wall, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the is suggesting providing a hole in the flap susceptor in order to overlap the vent opening in the flap with an aperture in the side wall for venting when the package is closed. Additionally however, Cole teaches that it has been conventional to provide apertures through susceptor surfaces (see figure 1A, 1C and 1D, item 124) and where there can be susceptors on the side walls (see figure 1A, item 108, 110; paragraph 23) and where the side walls can also include apertures (see paragraph 28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide an aperture through the flap susceptor of the flap as taught by Mast534 and Davis, as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design for the purpose of controlling the venting through the side wall as already desired by the combination.
Regarding claim 9, as shown in figure 1 and 2, Hoese teaches a portion of the top wall is removably separable from at least one of the plurality of side walls (see item 34, 60, 64 which are score lines and perforations for separation (see at least, column 6, lines 6-28)
Regarding claim 10, Hoese at figure 2, item 84, teaches the top wall comprising a susceptor layer and the bottom wall 90 comprising a susceptor (see column 12, line 58 to column 13, line 36).
Further regarding claim 15, Hopkins teaches that the at least one side wall includes a vent opening that is substantially aligned with vent openings on the flap of the lid (see figure 16, item 86 and paragraph 39). Hopkins teaches that providing this alignment can be useful for controlling the venting for browning and crisping (see paragraph 39). Hopkins thus teaches that the top wall and the at least one sidewall includes a vent opening, as recited in claim 15.
It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination and to have aligned vent openings on the flap of the lid and on the at least one sidewall, for the purpose of controlling the venting and thus crisping.
Claims 11-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 8 above, which relies on Hoese (US 6781101) as the primary reference and in further view of Neff (US 20100072197).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Hoese teaches that the top wall, the bottom wall and the side walls can all comprise susceptor materials (see column 13, lines 9-10 and lines 32-36 and column 13, line 67 to column 14, line 4). Hoese also teaches that the properties of the susceptors can vary to achieve the requisite degree of cooking (see column 13, line 3-8)
Claim 11 differs in specifically reciting that the bottom wall susceptor, top wall susceptor and side wall susceptors each have a pattern percentage of susceptor material to non-susceptor material and with the third pattern percentage of the side wall susceptors is less than the first and second pattern percentages of the bottom and top wall.
Neff teaches that the susceptors on all surfaces can be 5-100% patterned and further teaches susceptor 240, on the bottom wall, can be 40-60% patterned, thus teaching a first pattern percentage of susceptor to non-susceptor material (see paragraph 41). Neff further teaches a top wall including a top wall susceptor having a second pattern percentage of susceptor material to non-susceptor material (see figure 3, item 202, 242 and paragraph 41); and where the side walls can have a third pattern percentage of susceptor material to non-susceptor material (see figure 3, item 212,243 and paragraph 41), the at least one side wall, bottom wall, and top wall generally surrounding a comestible cooking space (see figure 3, item 340).
Regarding the limitation of, wherein the third pattern percentage is less than the first and second pattern percentages, Neff teaches that the sidewall susceptor can be 5% patterned or be substantially continuous, while the first pattern percentage on the bottom susceptor can be 100% patterned or 40-60% patterned and the second pattern percentage of the top wall can 5-100% patterned and where the surfaces can have the same or different patterns, thus teaching and suggesting that the third pattern percentage is less than the first and second pattern percentage (see paragraph 41).
Neff teaches that the first and second pattern percentages can be 100% (see paragraph 41) and that the sidewall pattern percentage can be less than 90% for controlling the degree of heating, such as 5% (see paragraph 41-42).
As Hoese is not limiting as to the particular pattern percentage and teaches that the susceptor configuration can vary, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hoese and used a third pattern percentage that is less than the first and second pattern percentage, and where the third pattern percentage is 90% or less while the first and second pattern percentages is 100%, as taught by Neff, for the purpose of achieving the desired degree of heating to the particular food being cooked within the package. without a
Regarding claim 16, Hoese teaches that the bottom wall is generally rectangular and includes corners.
Claim 16 differs in specifically reciting, wherein at least a portion of the corners do not include susceptor material.
Neff discloses that the bottom wall is generally rectangular (see figure 1) and includes corners, wherein at least a portion of the corners do not include susceptor material (see figure 3, where the susceptor 240 does not extend into corners; see also paragraph 28 which further teaches that the corners can be exposed and without a susceptor due to the clearance between the perimeter of the bottom wall and that of the susceptor 240) for the purpose of controlling the heating of the food product.
Hoese is also not limiting regarding the particular susceptor configuration of the bottom wall (see column 12, line 58 to column 13, lines 15 and column 13, lines 24-31).
To therefore modify Hoese’s bottom wall susceptor to have at least a portion of the corners not include susceptor material would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for achieving the requisite control of the heating commensurate with the desired food product to be cooked.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on page 12, directed to Neff and Hopkins failing to teach or suggest the bottom wall defining a vent opening have been considered but are moot in view of the rejection, as presented in this Office Action which does not rely on Hopkins to teach the claimed bottom wall vent opening.
On page 13 of the response, regarding claim 8, Applicant urges that Hopkins does not teach flap openings extending through a flap susceptor and even if Hopkins were modified to include a flap susceptor, the flap openings in Hopkins are positioned below the cooking space, in a space between the susceptor and the bottom wall
These arguments are not sufficient in view of the rejection as presented in this Office Action. It is further noted that the rejections do not rely on modifying Hopkins, but rather only rely on Hopkins to teach that it has been desirable to align openings associated with a flap of a top wall, with openings associated with a side wall, for the purpose of venting a microwavable package. Furthermore, Neff and the combination, already teach providing susceptor materials on a flap, such that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to provide the aperture in the flap through the susceptor for the known purpose of controlling heating and venting through the package.
On pages 14-15 of the response, Applicant’s arguments with respect to Karul have been considered, however these arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by the amendment to the claims.
The rejection does not rely on Karul, but rather relies on Uribe to teach an absorbent layer that is positioned on the bottom wall and which is used to absorb liquids that can exude from the product and through the bottom wall openings. In view of this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that bottom wall openings would have had a periphery and the absorbent layer as taught by Uribe would have encircled the openings and would have partially covered the openings since the absorbent layer is a permeable layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wiggins (US 20190342955) discloses an aperture through a susceptor in a top wall of a microwavable package (see figure 8, item 68, 76, 74).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIREN THAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-6694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:30-7:00pm.
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.
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights