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 .
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s RCE filing on 10/28/2025.
Claims 1-17 are pending and examined below.
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/28/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, 9, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito (JP 2007126177).
Regarding claim 1, Ito discloses a method for heat treating a food product contained in a package (10), wherein the package (10) being made of a packaging material comprising a carton layer (para 1 ln 2), and wherein the method comprises the steps of, in consecutive order:
exposing the package (10) to hot water to thereby transfer heat from the hot water to the food product;
drying the package (10), such that a water content in the carton layer of the packaging material is reduced; and
exposing the package (10) to cold water to thereby transfer heat from the food product to the cold water.
(Page 1 paragraph 4, Page 2 paragraph 8, Page 4 paragraphs 24-26)
On page 4 lines 29-31 of the Specification of the present invention, the package is disclosed to be sprayed with hot water, wherein the hot water may have liquid form or a form that is more or less gaseous (steam). Therefore, Ito does disclose the step of exposing the package to hot water.
Regarding claim 2, Ito discloses the package is exposed to the hot water until a temperature of the food product is in the range of 90 to 130ºC. (Page 4 paragraph 24)
Regarding claim 6, Ito discloses the drying step is performed for at least 1 minute. (Page 4 paragraph 36)
Regarding claim 9, Ito discloses the package (10) is heated by exposing the package to hot water. (Page 4 paragraph 24) This implies that the chamber (101) which holds the package (10) has a high relative humidity. In order for the package to be dried, the chamber where the package is dried must have a lower relative humidity. Therefore, Ito is interpreted to disclose the drying step comprises holding the package in a relative humidity that is less than the relative humidity of the chamber when the package is exposed to hot water.
Regarding claim 14, Ito discloses the drying step comprises condensing water form air in a chamber (101) holding the package (10), to provide for reduced humidity in said chamber (101). (Page 4 paragraph 26)
Regarding claim 17, Ito discloses a food product contained in a food package (10) obtained by the method according to claim 1. (Page 1 paragraph 4, Page 2 paragraph 8, Page 4 paragraphs 24-26)
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.
Claims 7-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (JP 2007126177).
Regarding claim 7, Ito discloses the package (10) is heated by exposing the package to hot water. (Page 4 paragraph 24) This implies that the chamber (101) which holds the package (10) has a high relative humidity. In order for the package to be dried, the chamber where the package is dried must have a lower relative humidity.
However, Ito does not explicitly disclose the chamber where drying is conducted has an absolute humidity that is less than half of the absolute humidity of the chamber when the package is exposed to the hot water.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Ito method by having the absolute humidity of the drying chamber less than half of the absolute humidity of the hot water chamber, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)]
On page 2 line 36 through page 3 lines 1-2 of the Specification, the drying chamber is disclosed to have an absolute humidity less than half of the absolute humidity of the hot water chamber. The Specification as originally filed do not disclose any criticality for the claimed feature. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Ito to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, Ito discloses the package is heated by having hot water applied to the package. (Page 4 paragraph 24) This implies that the chamber (101) which holds the package (10) has a high relative humidity. In order for the package to be dried, the chamber where the package is dried must have a lower relative humidity.
However, Ito does not explicitly disclose the chamber where drying is conducted has a relative humidity that is less than 30%.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Ito method by having the relative humidity of the drying chamber to be less than 30%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)]
On page 3 lines 2-3 of the Specification, the drying chamber is disclosed to have a relative humidity less than 30%. The Specification as originally filed do not disclose any criticality for the claimed feature. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Ito to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 12, Ito disclose the package is cooled by having the package immersed in cold water. (Page 5 paragraph 29) This implies that the chamber (101) which holds the package (10) has a high relative humidity in order to immerse the package in water.
However, Ito does not explicitly disclose the chamber where cooling is conducted has a relative humidity in the range of 80 to 100%.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Ito method by having the relative humidity of the cooling chamber to be between 80 to 100%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)]
On page 3 lines 9-10 of the Specification, the cooling chamber is disclosed to have a relative humidity between 80 to 100%. The Specification as originally filed do not disclose any criticality for the claimed feature. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Ito to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Claims 3, 10-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (JP 2007126177) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Andersson (7,784,248).
Regarding claim 3, Ito discloses the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose the package is exposed to hot water for 15 to 80 minutes.
Andersson disclose a method comprises the steps of:
exposing a package (14) to hot water to thereby transfer heat from the hot water to a food product within the package (14),
wherein the package (14) is exposed to the hot water for 15 to 80 minutes; and
exposing the package (14) to cold water to thereby transfer heat from the food product to the cold water.
(Column 4 lines 9-12, Column 6 lines 19-28)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Ito by incorporating the exposure of hot water to last for 15 to 80 minutes as taught by Andersson, since column 4 lines 9-12 of Andersson states such a modification would allow for proper heating of the product within the package.
Regarding claim 10, Ito discloses the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose the package is exposed to cold water until the temperature of the food product is gradually reduced to less than 50ºC.
Andersson discloses a method comprises the steps of:
exposing a package (14) to hot water to thereby transfer heat from the hot water to a food product within the package (14); and
exposing the package (14) to cold water to thereby transfer heat from the food product to the cold water;
wherein the package (14) is exposed to cold water until the temperature of the food product is less than 50ºC.
(Column 4 lines 17-20, Column 6 lines 19-28)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Ito by incorporating process of getting the food product cooled to a temperature less than 50ºC as taught by Andersson, since column 4 lines 17-20 of Andersson states such a modification would allow for food product to achieve the preferred cooled temperature.
Regarding claim 11, Ito modified by Andersson discloses the package is exposed to cold water until the temperature of the food product is gradually reduced to less than 50ºC. (Andersson – Column 4 lines 17-20)
However, Ito modified by Andersson do not explicitly disclose the package is exposed to cold water for 20 to 90 minutes.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the Ito method, as modified by Anderson above, by having the package exposed to cold water for 20 to 90 minutes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)]
On page 3 lines 8-9 of the Specification, the food product is disclosed to be exposed to cold water for 20 to 90 minutes. The Specification as originally filed do not disclose any criticality for the claimed feature. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Ito and Andersson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 16, Ito discloses a system for heat treating a food product contained in a package (10), wherein the package (10) being made of a packaging material comprising a carton layer (para 1 ln 2), and wherein the system is configured to:
expose the package (10) to hot water to thereby transfer heat from the hot water to the food product;
dry the package (10), such that a water content in the carton layer of the packaging material is reduced; and
expose the package (10) to cold water to thereby transfer heat from the food product to the cold water.
(Page 1 paragraph 4, Page 2 paragraph 8, Page 4 paragraphs 24-26)
On page 4 lines 29-31 of the Specification of the present invention, the package is disclosed to be sprayed with hot water, wherein the hot water may have liquid form or a form that is more or less gaseous (steam). Therefore, Ito does disclose the step of exposing the package to hot water.
However, Ito does not disclose a separate station for conducting each of these processes.
Andersson discloses a system (10) for heat treating a food product contained in a package (14), wherein said package (14) being made of a packaging material comprising a carton layer, and wherein said system (10) comprise in sequential order:
a heating station (1, 2) provided with a chamber arranged to expose the package (14) to hot water to thereby transfer heat from the hot water to the food product; and
a cooling station (3-8) provided with a chamber arranged to expose the package (14) to cold water to thereby transfer heat from the food product to the cold water.
(Figure 1 and Column 2 lines 59-67, Column 3 lines 7-11, Column 6 lines 19-28)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the system of Ito by incorporating separate station for each process as taught by Andersson, since column 5 lines 28-32 of Andersson states such a modification would allow the system to process multiple batches at the same time.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (JP 2007126177) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Dockhorn (2002/0354635).
Regarding claim 4, Ito discloses the package is exposed to hot water by applying steam onto the package. (Page 4 paragraph 24)
However, Ito does not explicitly disclose the exposing of the package to hot water comprises holding the package in a chamber having a relative humidity in the range of 80 to 100%.
Dockhorn discloses applying hot water to a package by applying steam to said package in a chamber with a relative humidity of at least 90%. (Page 10 paragraph 116)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Ito by incorporating the relative humidity of at least 90% as taught by Dockhorn, since page 10 paragraph 116 of Dockhorn states such a modification would ensure a steam saturated atmosphere is set in the chamber.
Claims 5, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (JP 2007126177) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Shimizu et al. (5,609,819).
Regarding claim 5, Ito discloses the claimed invention as stated above but does not disclose the package is held in a chamber for drying having a temperature in the range of 10 to 75ºC.
Shimizu et al. disclose a method comprising the steps of:
exposing a package (AA) to heat;
exposing the package (AA) to cold water; and
drying the package (AA),
wherein the drying of the package (AA) is conducted at room temperature.
(Column 1 lines 64-67 through Column 2 lines 1-2, Column 3 lines 7-13, Column 4 lines 21-29)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Ito to have the package dried at room temperature as taught by Shimizu et al., since column 3 lines 10-13 of Shimizu et al. states such a modification would allow the package to maintain the cooled temperature.
Room temperature is interpreted as around 20ºC. Therefore, Ito modified by Shimizu et al. is interpreted to disclose the drying comprises holding the package in a chamber having a mean temperature over time in the range of 10 to 75 ºC.
Regarding claim 13, on page 4 paragraph 24, Ito discloses that not forcibly discharging the steam causes the cooling time to be longer.
However, Ito does not disclose the step of generating air flow.
Shimizu et al. disclose a method comprising the steps of:
exposing a package (AA) to heat;
exposing the package (AA) to cold water; and
drying the package (AA),
wherein the drying of the package (AA) includes generating an air flow in a chamber hold the package.
(Column 1 lines 64-67 through Column 2 lines 1-2, Column 4 lines 25-30)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Ito by incorporating the generating of air flow as taught by Shimizu et al., since such a modification would help forcibly discharge the steam and thereby help reduce the cooling time.
Regarding claim 15, Ito discloses an apparatus for heat treating a food product contained in a package (10), wherein the package (10) being made of a packaging material comprising a carton layer (para 1 ln 2), and wherein the apparatus comprises:
a chamber (101) arranged to hold the package (10);
a nozzle arrangement (Figure 1) arranged to:
provide hot water inside the chamber (101) for exposing to hot water and thereby transfer heat from the hot water to the food product; and
provide cold water inside the chamber (101) for exposing the package (10) to cold water to thereby transfer heat from the food product to the cold water; and
a condenser (para 26) for reducing the humidity of the air and thereby provide drying the package (10) prior to the exposure of cold water, and such that a water content in the carton layer of the packaging material is reduced.
(Page 1 paragraph 4, Page 2 paragraph 8, Page 4 paragraphs 24-26)
[AltContent: textbox (Google Translated Figure 1 of Ito)]
PNG
media_image1.png
779
945
media_image1.png
Greyscale
On page 4 lines 29-31 of the Specification of the present invention, the package is disclosed to be sprayed with hot water, wherein the hot water may have liquid form or a form that is more or less gaseous (steam). Therefore, Ito does disclose the step of exposing the package to hot water.
On page 4 paragraph 24, Ito discloses that not forcibly discharging the steam causes the cooling time to be longer. However, Ito does not disclose an air circulating system.
Shimizu et al. disclose a process comprising the steps of:
exposing a package (AA) to heat;
exposing the package (AA) to cold water; and
drying the package (AA),
wherein the drying of the package (AA) includes generating an air flow in a chamber hold the package.
(Column 1 lines 64-67 through Column 2 lines 1-2, Column 4 lines 25-30)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Ito by incorporating an air flow generating device as taught by Shimizu et al., since such a modification would help forcibly discharge the steam and thereby help reduce the cooling time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK B FRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0396. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur 7am-4pm.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/PATRICK B FRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 December 18, 2025
/STEPHEN F. GERRITY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731 22 December 2025