Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on is acknowledged. Claims 1-12 are treated on the merit. Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from consideration. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the legal phraseology such as “comprises” or “comprise” or “comprising” or “means” or “said” often used in patent claims should be avoid in the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schneider et al (US 2009/0206074). Regarding claim 1, Schneider discloses apparatus (600, Figure 6A) for cooking raw food items in a microwave oven comprising a first compartment (602) having a first base (636) and first sidewalls (640) extending from the first base (636) to define a first cavity (606), the ends of the first sidewalls opposite the first base (636) forming a first opening into the first cavity (606), a flange disposed about at least a portion of the first opening into the first cavity (606); a second compartment (604) having a second base (638) and second sidewalls (642) extending from the second base (638) to define a second cavity (608) separate from the first cavity (606), the ends of the second sidewalls (642) opposite the second base (638) forming a second opening into the second cavity (608), the flange disposed about at least a portion of the second opening into the second cavity (608); a hinge (612) extending between the first compartment (602) and the second compartment (604) such that the first compartment (602) is able to be moved relative to the second compartment (604) for causing a content within the first compartment (602) to move into the second compartment (604); and a crisping susceptor (628, 630)disposed within the first compartment (par. 0064, Figures 6A-6C). Regarding claim 2, Schneider discloses the hinge (612, Figures 6A-6B) extends through at least a portion of a width of the flange between the sidewalls (640, 642) of the first (602) and second (604) compartments. Regarding claim 3, Schneider discloses the hinge (612) extends from a first edge to a second edge (Figures 6A, 6B). Regarding claim 4, Schneider discloses the first compartment (602) and the second (604) compartment are formed of a rigid material and the hinge (612) is formed in the rigid material (par. 0079, Figures 6A-6C). 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.
Claim(s) 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al (US 2009/0206074) in view of Middleton et al (US 2011/0204046). Regarding claim 5, Schneider discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention except the second compartment does not include a crisping susceptor. Middleton discloses a second compartment (508, Figure 5A) does not include a crisping susceptor (par. 0054). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to utilize in Schneider the second compartment does not include a crisping susceptor as taught by Middleton in order to cook the others food which does not require crisping. Regarding claim 6, Schneider is easily derived the pair of compartments (602, 604, par. 0013) may be hinged joint to one another with their respective interior spaces facing one another). Regarding claim 7, it would be easily derived from Schneider the crisping susceptor (628, 630, Figures 6A, 6C) is affixed to the first base (636,638) of the first compartment. Regarding claim 8, it would be easily derived from Schneider transferring the partially cooked food product from one cavity (606) to the other (608) to provide more even heating of the food item, wherein the second compartment (604) is able to moved relative to the first compartment (602) by the hinge (612, par. 0059, Figures 6A-6C). Regarding claim 9, it would be easily derived from Schneider the susceptor elements (628, 630) often are used to promote browning and/or crisping of the surface of the food item in which the susceptors (628, 630) overlie the interior side of the base (636, 638) and the respective peripheral wall (640,642) of each compartment (602, 604), where uncooked item is placed into one of the compartments (602,604, par. 0005, par. 0013, par. 0064). Regarding claim 10, It would be easily derived from Schneider (par. 0077, and Figure 6A-6C: if desired, the microwave energy interactive element may be supported on a microwave inactive or transparent substrate, for example, a polymer film or other suitable polymeric material, for ease of handling and/or to prevent contact between the microwave energy interactive material and the food item). Regarding claim 11, it would be easily derived from Schneider (par. 0006, par. 0059: and figures 6A-6C: after heating the food product within the cavity (606) for a specified amount of time, the partially cooked food product is transferred from one cavity (606) to the other cavity (608) to provide more even heating of the food item; and both of the opposed compartment (602,604) may be shaped to define an overall shape of the cooked food item, to define contours in the surface of food item, to accommodate the increasing volume of the food item as it cooks). Regarding claim 12, it would be easily derived from Schneider (par. 0004, par. 0079-par. 0080; and Figures 6A-6C: the apparatus (600) may be formed at least partially from a polymer or polymeric material, and the apparatus (600) may be formed in thermal bonding process etc., wherein the apparatus (600) is for preparing the food item in the microwave oven).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Dhawan (US 2020/0299052) discloses a package for food product..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG T VAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4789. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Steven W Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/QUANG T VAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 June 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights