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 Objections
Claims 21-40 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Independent claims should begin with the word, “A” and dependent claims should begin with the word “A” or “The” as appropriate. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 36 line 11, the words, “at least one” should be inserted before the words, “serving dish” to maintain continuity between the claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim limitation “carrier device” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language,“ receiving the at least one package comprising phase-change material therein and for receiving the at least one serving dish thereon” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 22 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
carrier device → element 140
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 21-40 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.
In claim 21, line 4, the word “thereof” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear which structure “thereof” is referring to. For example, is it the upper side of the at least one package, or the upper side of the thermal buffer material?
In claim 21, line 5, the word “thereof” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear which structure “thereof” is referring to. For example, is it the underside of the at least one package, or the upper side of the thermal buffer material?
For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “…wherein the upper side of the at least one package comprising thermal buffer material is in thermal contact the underside of the at least one package comprising thermal buffer material is in thermal contact
In claim 22, line 3, the words “therein” and “thereof” lack antecedent basis and it is unclear which structure “thereof” or “therein” is referring to. For example, is the carrier device? The package comprising phase-change material? Or the phase-change material itself? For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “a carrier device configured for receiving the at least one package comprising phase-change material
In claim 23, line 3, the term “hardly” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hardly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, one could not ascertain what material would be candied to be “hardly permeable to water, etc.”.
In claim 28, line 3, the term “hardly” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hardly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, one could not ascertain what material would be candied to be “hardly permeable to water, etc.”.
In claim 34, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 34 recites the broad recitation a difference between the melting points of the thermal buffer material and the phase-change material amounts to less than 10°C, and the claim also recites more preferably less than 7°C, still more preferably less than 4°C which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In claim 36, line 3, the claim recites “at least one optionally form-retaining package comprising phase-change material…” It is unclear which feature is optional. Does the package only optionally need to be form-retaining? Or is the entire package with phase-change material optional? For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “and at least one
In claim 36, line 5, the word “thereof” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear which structure “thereof” is referring to. For example, is it the upper side of the at least one package, or the upper side of the thermal buffer material?
In claim 36, line 6, the word “thereof” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear which structure “thereof” is referring to. For example, is it the underside of the at least one package, or the upper side of the thermal buffer material?
For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “…wherein the upper side of the at least one package comprising thermal buffer material is in thermal contact the underside of the at least one package comprising thermal buffer material is in thermal contact
In claim 36 line 8, it is unclear how the thermal buffing material and form-flexible package relates to the thermal buffer material and form-flexible package of line 2. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “packaging the thermal buffer material in [a] the form-flexible package”.
In claim 36 line 9, it is unclear how the phase-change material and package relates to the phase-change material and form-retaining package of line 3. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “packaging the phase-change material in [a] the form-retaining package”.
Claim 38, line 2 recites the limitations that the phase change material is preferably with a melting point in the range of -15°C to 5°C and the at least one form-flexible package comprising thermal buffer material, preferably with a melting point in the range of -5°C to 5°C are unclear. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. See MPEP 2173.05(d). Since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower melting points are a limitation, the scope of the claims cannot be determined. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if the claimed temperatures were only preferable and not required.
Claim 38 line 12 recites the limitation “this itself”. It is unclear what structure “this itself” is referring to. For example is it the at least one serving dish? The form-flexible package? Or the liquid thermal buffer material? For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “the at least one serving dish, with or without food thereon, is placed on the at least one form-flexible package comprising liquid thermal buffer material, the at least one form-flexible package comprising liquid thermal buffer material being placed in thermal contact on the at least one package comprising the solidified phase-change material.”.
Claim 39, line 2 recites the limitations that the phase change material is preferably with a melting point in the range of 5°C to 15°C and the at least one form-flexible package comprising thermal buffer material, preferably with a melting point in the range of 5°C to 15°C are unclear. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. See MPEP 2173.05(d). Since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower melting points are a limitation, the scope of the claims cannot be determined. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if the melting temperatures are not required and only preferable.
Claim 39 line 12 recites the limitation “this itself”. It is unclear what structure “this itself” is referring to. For example is it the at least one serving dish? The form-flexible package? Or the liquid thermal buffer material? For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “the at least one serving dish, with or without food thereon, is placed on the at least one form-flexible package comprising liquid thermal buffer material, the at least one form-flexible package comprising liquid thermal buffer material being placed in thermal contact on the at least one package comprising the solidified phase-change material.”.
Claim 40, line 2 recites the limitations that the phase change material is preferably with a melting point in the range of 35°C to 95°C, is unclear. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. See MPEP 2173.05(d). Since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower melting points are a limitation, the scope of the claims cannot be determined. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if the melting points are preferable and not required.
Claim 40 line 12-13 recites the limitation “this itself”. It is unclear what structure “this itself” is referring to. For example, is it the at least one serving dish? The form-flexible package? Or the liquid thermal buffer material? For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “the at least one serving dish, with or without food thereon, is placed on the at least one form-flexible package comprising liquid thermal buffer material, the at least one form-flexible package comprising liquid thermal buffer material being placed in thermal contact on the at least one package comprising the solidified phase-change material.”.
Claims 24-27, 29-33, 35, and 37 are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 21-24, 29, 30, 33, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,213,336 to Lin, hereinafter referred to as Lin, in view of WO 2018/000055 to Redjal et al. hereinafter referred to as Redjal (provided by Applicant with the IDS filed January 9, 2024)
In reference to claim 21, Lin and Redjal disclose the claimed invention.
Lin discloses a crockery system comprising:
at least one serving dish (10),
at least one package (11) comprising liquid thermal buffer material, see column 2 lines 41-45 (temperature storing liquid), and at least one package (40) comprising phase-change material, see column 2 lines 16-30 (note the temperatures storing liquid in 40 will inherently have a temperature at which the liquid would change phase into a solid), wherein the upper side of the at least one package comprising thermal buffer material (11) is in thermal contact the underside of the at least one package comprising thermal buffer material (11) is in thermal contact
Lin fails to disclose the at least one package being a form-flexible package. Redjal teaches that in the art of PCM cooled crockery, that it is a known method to provide a liquid phase change material in a form-flexible package (pouch), see page 2 lines 13-18, where Redjal teaches that the flexibility of the pouch further ensures that it can be arranged fittingly against wails of different shapes to be heated or cooled without airspaces forming between the pouch and the wall and the pouch can also stretch when the phase-change material expends during transition from the one phase to the other, and such that the pouch becomes taut again when the phase-change material contracts during a reverse phase transition. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Lin by Redjal such that, the at least one package being a form-flexible package, in order to advantageously ensure that the thermal buffer can be arranged fittingly against wails of different shapes to be heated or cooled without airspaces forming between the pouch and the wall and the pouch can also stretch when the phase-change material expends during transition from the one phase to the other, and such that the pouch becomes taut again when the phase-change material contracts during a reverse phase transition.
In reference to claim 22, Lin and Redjal disclose the claimed invention.
Lin discloses a carrier device (20) configured for receiving the at least one package comprising phase-change material therein (40) and for receiving the at least one serving dish (10) thereon.
In reference to claim 23, Lin and Redjal disclose the claimed invention.
Lin as modified by Redjal fails to expressly state that the at least one form-flexible package comprising liquid thermal buffer material is manufactured from plastic material which is hardly permeable to water, salt, alcohols, and esters, or is impermeable to water, salt, alcohols and esters. However, it would make sense to provide a plastic that is impermeable to common phase change materials in order to ensure that the phase change material within the pouch did not leak from the pouch when conforming to the serving dish placed thereupon or during expansion during freezing. See for example page 6 lines 11-27 of Redjal where it is disclosed that keeping the material enclosed within the pouch is important. Accordingly, it would have been an obvious design choice to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide the at least one form-flexible package comprising liquid thermal buffer material is manufactured from plastic material which is hardly permeable to water, salt, alcohols, and esters, or is impermeable to water, salt, alcohols and esters, in order to ensure that common phase change materials were contained within the desired envelope and did not leak.
In reference to claim 24, Lin and Redjal disclose the claimed invention.
Lin fails to disclose the liquid thermal buffer material comprises water, salt, alcohols and/or esters. However these materials are commonly used as phase change materials in the art of passive cooling, see for example Redjal page 5 line 29-34. Accordingly, salt hydrates are a material known to be suitable for the intended purpose of utilization of a PCM. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Lin such the liquid thermal buffer material comprises salt, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
In reference to claim 29, Lin and Redjal disclose the claimed invention.
Lin fails to disclose the phase change matieral comprises water, salt, alcohols and/or esters. However these materials are commonly used as phase change materials in the art of passive cooling, see for example Redjal page 5 line 29-34. Accordingly, salt hydrates are a material known to be suitable for the intended purpose of utilization of a PCM. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Lin such the phase change material comprises salt, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
In reference to claim 30, Lin and Redjal disclose the claimed invention.
Lin as modified supra fails to disclose the phase-change material has a melting point of between 35°C and 95°C. However, selecting a phase-change material that has a melting/freezing point in the range of a desired temperature of the goods to be heated/cooled is routine. When designing such a system, the designer would have to establish what temperature it is desired to maintain the product and select a material that would provide the desired temperature. Further, there is no evidence of record that the claimed temperature range is critical to the invention or does anything more than provide a predictable result of maintaining a desired temperature for products requiring temperature modification. Accordingly, it would have been a mere matter of obvious design choice to select the phase-change material such that it has a melting point of between 35°C and 95°C, in order to maintain a product at a temperature between 35°C and 95°C.
In reference to claim 33, Lin and Redjal disclose the claimed invention.
Lin as modified supra fails to disclose the liquid thermal buffer material has a thermal conductivity of at least 0.1 W/(m.K). However, selecting a thermal buffer material that has a thermal conductivity of at least 0.1 W/(m.K) is routine. When designing such a system, the designer would have to establish what thermal conductivity of the material would provide the desired thermal resistance. Further, there is no evidence of record that the claimed thermal conductivity is critical to the invention or does anything more than provide a predictable result of maintaining a desired temperature for products requiring temperature modification. Accordingly, it would have been a mere matter of obvious design choice to select the liquid thermal buffer material has a thermal conductivity of at least 0.1 W/(m.K), in order to maintain a product at a temperature between 35°C and 95°C.
In reference to claim 36, Lin and Redjal disclose the claimed invention.
Note that the method of claim 36 produces the crockery system of claim 21. The combination of Lin and Redjal as provided in claim 21 supra would necessarily require the method steps of claim 36. Accordingly, the apparatus of Lin and Redjal as combined (see rejection of claim 21 supra) meets the limitations of claim 36.
In reference to claim 37, Lin and Redjal disclose the claimed invention.
Note that the method of claim 37 produces the crockery system of claim 22. The combination of Lin and Redjal as provided in claim 22 supra would necessarily require the method steps of claim 37. Accordingly, the apparatus of Lin and Redjal as combined (see rejection of claim 22 supra) meets the limitations of claim 37.
Claims 25-28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, in view of Redjal as applied supra, and in further view of US 2020/0003474 to Jennie, hereinafter referred to as Jennie.
In reference to claims 25 and 26, Lin, Redjal, and Jennie disclose the claimed invention.
Lin as modified supra fails to disclose the liquid thermal buffer material comprises a gelling agent (sodium polyacrylate).
Jennie teaches that in the art of refreezable materials, that it is a known method to provide the refreezable material such that it comprises a gelling agent such as sodium polyacrylate, [0029]. Accordingly, gelling agents are a material known to be suitable for the intended purpose of utilization of a heat storage material. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Lin such the liquid thermal buffer material comprises a gelling agent such as sodium polyacrylate, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
In reference to claim 27, Lin, Redjal, and Jennie disclose the claimed invention.
Lin as modified supra fails to explicitly disclose the package comprising phase-change material (40) is manufactured from form-retaining material.
However, Jennie teaches that in the art of refreezable materials, that it is a known method to provide the refreezable material in a rigid, form-retaining material, see at least [0020]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Lin by Jennie such that, the package comprising phase-change material (40) is manufactured from form-retaining material, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of maintaining a desired shape.
In reference to claim 28, Lin, Redjal, and Jennie disclose the claimed invention.
Jennie teaches the package comprising phase-change material is manufactured from form-retaining plastic material which is hardly permeable to water, salt, alcohols, and esters, or is impermeable to water, salt, alcohols and esters [0029]. Accordingly, when modifying Lin by Jennie as applied in claim 27 supra, the limitations of claim 28 would be met by the combination.
In reference to claim 31, Lin, Redjal, and Jennie disclose the claimed invention.
Lin as modified supra fails to disclose the phase-change material comprises a gelling agent.
Jennie teaches that in the art of refreezable materials, that it is a known method to provide the refreezable material such that it comprises a gelling agent, [0029]. Accordingly, gelling agents are a material known to be suitable for the intended purpose of utilization of a heat storage material. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Lin such the phase change material comprises a gelling agent such as sodium polyacrylate, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, in view of Redjal as applied supra, and in further view of WO2018/122471 to Renaud et al., hereinafter referred to as Renaud (see English language translation provided herewith).
In reference to claim 32, Lin, Redjal, and Renaud disclose the claimed invention.
Lin fails to disclose the at least one serving dish comprises at least one material selected from the group of stainless steel, porcelain, stoneware, glass, tempered glass and plastic.
Renaud teaches that porcelain is a material known to be suitable for serving dishes. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Lin such the at least one serving dish comprises porcelain, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 34, 35, 38, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, in view of Redjal as applied supra, and in further view of US 2016/0347532 to McCormick hereinafter referred to as McCormik.
In reference to claims 34 and 35, Lin, Redjal, and McCormic disclose the claimed invention.
Lin fails to disclose a difference between the melting points of the thermal buffer material and the phase-change material amounts to less than 1 0°C, more preferably less than 7°C, still more preferably less than 4°C (0°C for claim 35).
MCcormick teaches that the difference between the melting points of a thermal buffer material and the phase-change material is recognized as a result effective variable, because it is a variable that achieves a recognized result. That is to control the temperature of the vessel and protect the payload from temperatures outside the target temperature [0013]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select an optimum a difference between the melting points of the thermal buffer material and the phase-change material amounts to less than 1 0°C, more preferably less than 7°C, still more preferably less than 4°C, (0°C for claim 35), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discloses in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223.
In reference to claim 38, Lin, Redjal, and McCormik disclose the claimed invention.
Lin discloses a method for use of the crockery system according to claim 21 (see rejection of claim 21 supra, wherein:
the at least one form-flexible package comprising liquid thermal buffer material (11) is placed in thermal contact on the at least one package (40) comprising the solidified phase- change material (see figure 2);
-the at least one serving dish (10), with or without food thereon, is placed on the at least one form-flexible package (11) comprising liquid thermal buffer material,
Note the melting ranges are only preferable and not required and the cooling of the serving dish and form-flexible package is optional and not required.
Lin fails to disclose the at least one package comprising phase-change material is placed in a freezer until the phase-change material has solidified.
McCormik teaches that in the art of phase change materials for keeping contents cold, that it is a known method to charge the phase change material by freezing the phase change material [0025]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify the method of Lin by McCormik such that, the at least one package comprising phase-change material is placed in a freezer until the phase-change material has solidified in order to charge the material with cold and keep the contents of the cup cold.
In reference to claim 39, Lin, Redjal, and McCormik disclose the claimed invention.
Lin as modified by Redjal teaches that system of claim 21, see rejection of claim 21 supra.
- the at least one form-flexible package (11) comprising liquid thermal buffer material is placed in thermal contact on the at least one package (40) comprising the solidified phase- change material, see figure 2;
- the at least one serving dish (10), with or without food thereon, is placed on the at least one form-flexible package (11) comprising liquid thermal buffer material, this itself being placed in thermal contact on the at least one package (40)comprising the solidified phase-change material, see figure 2.
Note the melting ranges are only preferable and not required and the cooling of the serving dish and form-flexible package is optional and not required.
Lin fails to disclose Lin discloses the at least one package comprising phase-change material, is cooled until the phase-change material has solidified.
McCormik teaches that in the art of phase change materials for keeping contents cold, that it is a known method to charge the phase change material by cooling the phase change material until solidified [0025]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify the method of Lin by McCormik such that, the at least one package comprising phase-change material is cooled until the phase-change material has solidified in order to charge the material with cold and keep the contents of the cup cold.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, in view of Redjal as applied supra, and in further view of US 2017/0303710 to Sabin et al. hereinafter referred to as Sabin.
In reference to claim 40, Lin, Redjal, and Sabin disclose the claimed invention.
Lin as modified by Redjal teaches the crockery system according to claim 21, see rejection of claim 21 supra, wherein:
the at least one form-flexible package (11) comprising liquid thermal buffer material is placed in thermal contact on the at least one package (40)comprising the solidified phase- change material, see figure 2;
- the at least one serving dish (10), with or without food thereon, is placed in thermal contact on the at least one form-flexible package (11)comprising liquid thermal buffer material, this itself being placed in thermal contact on the at least one package (40) comprising the solidified phase-change material, see figure 2.
Note the melting ranges are only preferable and not required and the heating of the serving dish and form-flexible package is optional and not required.
Lin fails to explicitly disclose the at least one package comprising phase-change material, is heated until the phase-change material has melted. However heating a phase change material until it melts is a known technique, see Sabin [0041]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Lin by Sabin such that, the at least one package comprising phase-change material, is heated until the phase-change material has melted in order to charge the pcm to heat the contents of the serving dish.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSEY D BAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 10AM-8PM (ET).
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/CASSEY D BAUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763