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 reply filed on October 22, 2025 wherein claims 1, 9, 13, 20 were amended and claims 8, 17 canceled. The Examiner notes amendments in claims are directed to overcome rejections under 35 USC § 103. Therefore, claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-20 are pending and will be examined.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (South Korea Patent KR101773328B1) hereinafter CHUNG, in view of Jiang et al. (China Patent Application Publication CN110406777A) hereinafter JIANG.
Regarding claim 1, CHUNG teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 8, FIG. 11 - FIG. 13 below) a lunch box device 100 that provides a user with a specialized lunch box 100 that keeps food and drinks (page 4, lines 10-11, “...food...”) warm or cool (page 1, Abstract, line 1, “... cool and warm...”), the lunch box100 comprising:
a body component 140;
a radiant heating element 210:
a cooling 210 element (page 3, lines 26-27, “... polar conversion...”):
a flip cover 130; and
a rechargeable battery 500;
wherein the body component 140 comprises a hot section 170 and a cold section 160;
wherein the hot section 170 and the cold section 160 are separated by a divider 200;
wherein the divider 200 is a permanent interior wall 200 (page 5, lines 8-9, “...May be movable...”) in a middle (FIG. 6) of the body component 140, which helps separate the hot 170 and cold 160 sections;
wherein the flip cover 130 seals (FIG. 2) the body component 140 and prevents spills; and further
wherein the rechargeable battery 500 powers radiant heating element 210 and cooling 210 element (page 3, lines 26-27, “... polar conversion...”) to keep the hot section 170 hot and the cold section 160 cold, retaining temperature of food placed within the hot section 170 and the cold section 160.
CHUNG fails to teach lunch box device 100 \ specialized lunch box 100 is a lunch bag device \ specialized lunch bag.
CHUNG fails to teach cooling 210 element is a fan powered electrical cooling element 210.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified lunch box device 100 \ specialized lunch box 100 of CHUNG into a lunch bag device \ specialized lunch bag (hereinafter lunch bag device 100 \ specialized lunch bag 100) to meet design requirements since known work in one field of endeavor (i.e., boxes) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (i.e., bags) based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness [R-01.2024]
Furthermore, JIANG teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2 below) a takeaway box 100, wherein the cooling 61 element is a fan powered electrical cooling element 61 for improving air conditioning (page 4, lines 41-44, “… tank wall…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified cooling 210 element in the lunch bag device 100 of CHUNG with fan powered electrical cooling element 61 as taught in the takeaway box 100 of JIANG for improving air conditioning.
PNG
media_image1.png
689
1334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
792
801
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
812
810
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
927
782
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
756
704
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
758
979
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
785
970
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
756
965
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
740
960
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
847
779
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
685
692
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
632
604
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
745
592
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, CHUNG and JIANG (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. CHUNG further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 8, FIG. 11 - FIG. 13 above) lunch bag device 100, wherein the body component 140 is configured in a rectangular shape (FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 3, CHUNG and JIANG (as applied to claim 2 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. CHUNG further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 8, FIG. 11 - FIG. 13 above) lunch bag device 100, wherein the body component 140 comprises an interior cavity C4-01, defining the hot section 170 and the cold section 160.
Regarding claim 4, CHUNG and JIANG (as applied to claim 3 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. CHUNG further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 8, FIG. 11 - FIG. 13 above) lunch bag device 100, wherein the hot section 170 and the cold section 160 open upwardly (FIG. 4) and are closed by the flip cover 130.
Regarding claim 5, CHUNG and JIANG (as applied to claim 4 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. CHUNG fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 8, FIG. 11 - FIG. 13 above) lunch bag device 100, wherein the hot section 170 and the cold section 160 each have a floor C4-02 from which projects opposing side C4-03 walls, and front C4-05 and back C4-04 walls.
Regarding claim 6, CHUNG and JIANG (as applied to claim 5 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. CHUNG further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 8, FIG. 11 - FIG. 13 above) lunch bag device 100, wherein the divider 200 is removable (FIG. 7).
Regarding claim 7, CHUNG and JIANG (as applied to claim 6 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. CHUNG further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 8, FIG. 11 - FIG. 13 above) lunch bag device 100, wherein the body component 140 a heat insulating material C11-01 covers inner surfaces of hot section 170 / cold section 160 (page 2, Claims, lines 1-2, “… prevent heat exchange with the outside…”).
CHUNG fails to teach lunch bag device 100, wherein the body component 140 is double-walled and comprises an inner liner with an insulating material disposed between the double-walls.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the body component 140 from heat insulating material C11-01 into double-walled (comprising an inner liner with an insulating material) in the lunch bag device 100 of CHUNG since these are regarded as mechanical equivalents intended for serving thermal insulation purposes. MPEP 2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose [R-08.2012]
Regarding claim 9, CHUNG and JIANG (as applied to claim 7 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. CHUNG further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 8, FIG. 11 - FIG. 13 above) lunch bag device 100, wherein the body component 140 comprises a temperature control knob 400 for controlling temperature of the hot 170 and cold 160 sections.
Regarding claim 10, CHUNG and JIANG (as applied to claim 9 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. CHUNG fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 8, FIG. 11 - FIG. 13 above) lunch bag device 100, wherein instead of the electrical cooling 210 element, at least one freezer pack is used to keep the cold section 160 cold.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified electrical cooling 210 element into at least one freezer pack in the lunch bag device 100 of CHUNG and JIANG since these are regarded as mechanical equivalents intended for serving refrigeration purposes. MPEP 2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose [R-08.2012]
Claim(s) 13-15, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHUNG.
Regarding claim 13, CHUNG teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 8, FIG. 11 - FIG. 13 above) a lunch box device 100 that provides a user with a specialized lunch box 100 that keeps food and drinks (page 4, lines 10-11, “...food...”) warm or cool (page 1, Abstract, line 1, “... cool and warm...”), the lunch box device 100 comprising:
a body component 140 that is of an open-top type construction (FIG. 4) and comprises a front wall C4-05, a back wall C4-04, a floor C4-02 and a pair of side C4-03 walls, forming an interior rectangular cavity (FIG. 4) which is bisected by a removable (FIG. 7) divider 200;
an electric resistance heating element 210;
an electrical air conditioning cooling element 210;
a flip cover 130; and
a rechargeable battery 500;
wherein the interior rectangular cavity is configured into a hot section 170 and a cold section 160 separated by a removable (FIG. 7) divider 200;
wherein the flip cover 130 seals (FIG. 2) the body component 140 and prevents spills;
wherein the rechargeable battery 500 powers the electric resistance heating element 210 / electrical air conditioning cooling elements 210 to keep the hot section 170 hot and the cold section 160 cold, retaining temperature of food placed within the hot section 170 and the cold section 160; and further
wherein the body component 140 comprises a temperature control knob 400 for controlling temperature of the hot 170 and cold 160 sections.
CHUNG fails to teach lunch box device 100 \ specialized lunch box 100 is a lunch bag device \ specialized lunch bag.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified lunch box device 100 \ specialized lunch box 100 of CHUNG into a lunch bag device \ specialized lunch bag (hereinafter lunch bag device 100 \ specialized lunch bag 100) to meet design requirements since known work in one field of endeavor (i.e., boxes) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (i.e., bags) based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness [R-01.2024]
CHUNG further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 8, FIG. 11 - FIG. 13 above) lunch bag device 100, wherein the body component 140 a heat insulating material C11-01 covers inner surfaces of hot section 170 / cold section 160 (page 2, Claims, lines 1-2, “… prevent heat exchange with the outside…”).
CHUNG fails to teach lunch bag device 100, wherein the body component 140 is double-walled and comprises an inner liner with an insulating material disposed between the double-walls.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the body component 140 from heat insulating material C11-01 into double-walled (comprising an inner liner with an insulating material) in the lunch bag device 100 of CHUNG since these are regarded as mechanical equivalents intended for serving thermal insulation purposes. MPEP 2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose [R-08.2012]
CHUNG further teaches divider 200 retain a heating 210 element or a cooling 210 element (page 3, lines 26-27, “... polar conversion...”).
CHUNG fails to teach double-walls create an open chamber to retain a heating 210 element or a cooling 210 element (page 3, lines 26-27, “... polar conversion...”).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the modified relative placement of electric resistance heating element 210 / electrical air conditioning cooling elements 210 (from divider 200 to double-walls) since their locations will not have modified the operation of the lunch bag device 100 of CHUNG. MPEP 2144.04, VI. REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS
CHUNG fails to teach wherein the body component 140 comprises a detachable handle 110.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified handle 110 (being detachable) in the body component 140 of CHUNG since use of a multiple piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in CHUNG would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. MPEP 2144.04 / V. MAKING PORTABLE, INTEGRAL, SEPARABLE, ADJUSTABLE, OR CONTINUOUS / B. Making Integral
Regarding claim 14, CHUNG (as applied to claim 13 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. CHUNG fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 8, FIG. 11 - FIG. 13 above) lunch bag device 100, wherein instead of the cooling 210 element, at least one freezer pack is used to keep the cold section 160 cold.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified cooling 210 element into at least one freezer pack in the lunch bag device 100 of CHUNG since these are regarded as mechanical equivalents intended for serving refrigeration purposes. MPEP 2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose [R-08.2012]
Regarding claim 15, CHUNG (as applied to claim 13 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. CHUNG fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 8, FIG. 11 - FIG. 13 above) lunch bag device 100, wherein the front wall C4-05, the back wall C4-04, the floor C4-02 and the pair of side C4-03 walls are formed from insulating material.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected an insulating material to form front wall C4-05 / back wall C4-04 / floor C4-02 / pair of side C4-03 walls in the lunch bag device 100 of CHUNG to meet design requirements. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose [R-01.2024]
Regarding claim 18, CHUNG (as applied to claim 13 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. CHUNG fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 8, FIG. 11 - FIG. 13 above) lunch bag device 100, wherein instead of a flip cover 130, a zipper is used to close the body component 140.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified a flip cover 130 into a zipper in the lunch bag device 100 of CHUNG since these are regarded as mechanical equivalents intended for serving securement purposes. MPEP 2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose [R-08.2012]
Regarding claim 19, CHUNG (as applied to claim 13 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. CHUNG further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 8, FIG. 11 - FIG. 13 above) lunch bag device 100 further comprising a plurality of indicia (FIG. 12)
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHUNG, in view of JIANG, in further view of Garvin (U. S. Patent US6144016A) hereinafter GARVIN.
Regarding claim 11, CHUNG and JIANG (as applied to claim 10 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. CHUNG further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 8, FIG. 11 - FIG. 13 above) lunch bag device 100, wherein the flip cover 130 is secured (FIG. 3) to the back C4-04 wall of the body component 140.
CHUNG fails to teach flip cover 130 comprises a latch to secure the flip cover 130 in place over the interior rectangular cavity.
However, GARVIN teaches (see FIG 1 - FIG 3 below) a lunch box 10, wherein flip cover 20 comprises a latch 26 to secure the flip cover 20 in place over the interior rectangular cavity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified flip cover 130 in the lunch bag device 100 of CHUNG and JIANG with flip cover 20 as taught in the lunch box 10 of GARVIN for securement purposes.
PNG
media_image14.png
988
740
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
847
383
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
641
526
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, CHUNG, JIANG, and GARVIN (as applied to claim 11 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. CHUNG fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 8, FIG. 11 - FIG. 13 above) lunch bag device 100, wherein the body component 140 comprises a carrying strap.
However, GARVIN teaches (see FIG 1 - FIG 3 above) lunch box 10, wherein the body component 32 comprises a carrying strap 30 for ease of transport.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified body component 140 in the lunch bag device 100 of CHUNG, JIANG, and GARVIN with body component 32 as taught in the lunch box 10 of GARVIN for ease of transport.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHUNG, in view of Garvin (U. S. Patent US6144016A) hereinafter GARVIN.
Regarding claim 16, CHUNG (as applied to claim 13 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. CHUNG further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 8, FIG. 11 - FIG. 13 above) lunch bag device 100, wherein the flip cover 130 is secured (FIG. 3) to the back C4-04 wall of the body component 140.
CHUNG fails to teach flip cover 130 comprises a latch to secure the flip cover 130 in place over the interior rectangular cavity.
However, GARVIN teaches (see FIG 1 - FIG 3 above) a lunch box 10, wherein flip cover 20 comprises a latch 26 to secure the flip cover 20 in place over the interior rectangular cavity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified flip cover 130 in the lunch bag device 100 of CHUNG with flip cover 20 as taught in the lunch box 10 of GARVIN for securement purposes.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHUNG, in view of GARVIN, in further view of Mogil (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20070278234A1) hereinafter MOGIL.
Regarding claim 20, CHUNG teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 8, FIG. 11 - FIG. 13 above) [albeit with different phraseology] a method of heating or cooling lunch foods in a lunch box device 100, the method comprising the following steps:
providing a lunch box device 100 comprising a body component 140 with a heated section 170 and a cooled section 160 separated by a divider 200;
inserting a rechargeable battery 500 into the body component 140 to cool (page 1, Abstract, line 1, “... cool and warm...”) or heat the food;
inserting food that needs to be cooled into the cool section 160 and inserting food that needs to be heated into the hot section 170;
securing the flip cover 130 to secure the food within the lunch box device 100, and
wherein the lunch box device 100 comprises a heating element 210, a cooling element 210.
CHUNG fails to teach lunch box device 100 is a lunch bag device.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified lunch box device 100 of CHUNG into a lunch bag device (hereinafter lunch bag device 100) to meet design requirements since known work in one field of endeavor (i.e., boxes) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (i.e., bags) based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness [R-01.2024]
CHUNG fails to teach transporting the lunch bag device 100 via the strap.
However, GARVIN teaches (see FIG 1 - FIG 3 above) [albeit with different phraseology] a method, wherein transporting the lunch box 10 is via a strap for ease of handling.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified lunch bag device 100 in the method of CHUNG with lunch box 10 as taught in the method of GARVIN for ease of handling.
CHUNG fails to teach wherein the lunch box device 100 comprises a pocket in the cooled section 160 of the lunch box device 100 for retaining a freezer pack.
However, MOGIL teaches (see FIG. 1a, FIG. 1i below) an insulated container assembly 20, comprising a pocket 74 in the cooled section 54 of the insulated container assembly 20 for retaining a freezer pack (page 34, para. [0063], lines 11-14, “… ice pack…”) for furthering cooling purposes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified cooled section 160 for the lunch bag device 100 in the method of CHUNG and GARVIN with cooled section 160 as taught in the insulated container assembly 20 of MOGIL for furthering cooling purposes.
PNG
media_image17.png
792
635
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
714
772
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments / amendments regarding rejections under 35 USC § 103 filed on October 22, 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejections does not rely on exactly all references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the Applicant’s arguments.
With respect to the art rejections, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2D 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Li et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20180335241A1): Teaches a “container” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Smith et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20180290814A1): Teaches a “container” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Hori et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20170259956A1): Teaches a “case(s)” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Choi et al. (South Korea Patent Application Publication KR20160118133A): Teaches a “container(s)” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS JAVIER RODRIGUEZ MOLINA whose telephone number is (571) 272-8947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, ANTHONY D. STASHICK can be reached on (571) 272-4561. 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.
/M.J.R.M./
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735