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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 4, lines 1-2, the specification as filed refers to the cover being sealed to the top surface 26 in the pattern 30 to create two generally triangular portions 38. It is not clear as to what portion of reference character 38 in the figures is “generally triangular” as the term “triangular” would appear to reasonably suggest resembling a triangle; however it is not clear as to how reference character 38 resembles a triangle.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the specification page 3, last two lines refers to “curved portions 34” however figure 1 and 3 do not appear to show reference character 34 pointing to any portion of pattern 30 that is curved.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 6, 15, 17, 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3 and claim 17 line 4 recite, “a plurality of food products with one food product housed in each pocket.” While the limitation is clear, for matters of form, it is suggested to amend the limitation to recite, “a plurality of food products with one food product of the plurality of food products housed in each pocket of the plurality of pockets.
Claims 5, 6 and 18 recite, “the food products.” While it is clear that this limitation is referring to “a plurality of food products” as recited in claims 1 and 17, for matters of form, this limitation should be amended to recite, “the plurality of food products.”
Claim 15 recites, “wherein the compartment and the cover have peripheries that are the same shape.” While this limitation is clear, for matters of form, the limitation should be amended to recite, “wherein the compartment and the cover each have a periphery that is the same shape.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9 and 10 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 9 recites, “the top surface” on line 2, which lacks proper antecedent basis because it is not clear whether it is referring to “a top surface” as recited on line 1 of claim 9 or “a top surface” as recited on line 1 of claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation, “wherein the cover has the same periphery.” This limitation is not clear as to what it means for the periphery to be “the same.” For example, this limitation could be open to having the same dimensions, or generically the same shape (i.e. both peripheries are square, for example). Applicant’s specification discloses on page 2, lines 1-2 that the flexible film has a periphery that is the same shape as the periphery of the compartment. However, the claim does not recite that the compartment and the cover each have a periphery that is the same shape. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 1-6, 10 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by King (US 3216832).
Regarding claim 1, King discloses a vacuum package (see column 2, lines 22-24, 39-46; see figure 5), for containing a plurality of food products (see figure 2 and 4, item 11) comprising: a compartment including a plurality of pockets defined by semi-cylindrical walls (see figure 2 and 3 and the semi-cylindrical walls as defined by 26; see column 4, lines 44-49 discloses that the compartments are pre-formed; see also column 4, lines 20-29); a plurality of food products with one food product housed in each pocket (see figure 2 and the food products 11 within each pocket); a cover enclosing the compartment to define an interior (figure 2, item 12); and a vacuum in the interior (see column 2, lines 22-24, 39-46; see figure 5).
Regarding claim 2, King discloses a top surface capable of securing the cover thereto (see figure 2 and the flange to the left of item 16). Regarding claim 2, it is noted that the claim does not limit the top surface to be a top surface of the compartment but can be some other structure associated with the vacuum package and used to enclose the compartment. Nonetheless, King discloses the top surface as part of the compartment.
Regarding claim 3, King discloses that the top surface is planar. That is, as shown in figure 2, there is a top surface onto which cover 12 is secured, and which top surface is planar at the flange.
Regarding claim 4, King discloses that the cover includes a flexible film (see figure 2, item 12, which is a film that is flexible since mold 27 can shape the film).
Regarding claim 5, King discloses that the food products are of a complementary shape to the pockets (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, King discloses the food products are cylindrically shaped and elongate (see figure 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 10, as shown in figure 1 and 2, King discloses that the compartment has a periphery and wherein the cover has the same periphery. The claim does not provide specificity as to what it means to have the “same” periphery and therefore is open to the periphery having the same type of shape or same dimensions, for example. Nonetheless, in figure 1, King discloses that the periphery of the compartment and the cover have the same shape.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, King discloses that the compartment has a periphery that is rectangular and the cover has a periphery that is rectangular, as shown in figure 1. That is, figure 1 discloses either a rectangle or a square - and a square is a rectangle.
Regarding claim 15, as shown in figure 1, the compartment and the cover have peripheries that are the same shape. In this instance, the peripheries are both rectangular or square.
Regarding claim 16, King discloses that the pockets are elongate and parallel to one another (see figure 1 and 2).
Claims 1-9, 13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Girimonte (US 20210179312).
Regarding claim 1, Girimonte discloses a vacuum package (see paragraph 49), for containing a plurality of food products (see figure 4, 6 and 7 and item 2 in figure 7) comprising: a compartment including a plurality of pockets defined by semi-cylindrical walls (see figure 5 and paragraph 35, “semi-cylindrical shape”); a plurality of food products with one food product housed in each pocket (see figure 7); a cover enclosing the compartment to define an interior (see paragraph 47 where a film is vacuum sealed to the tray such that the film bonds to the upper surface 112 of the tray); and a vacuum in the interior (see at least, the abstract and paragraph 47 where the air is vacuumed out of the pouch, therefore disclosing a vacuum in the interior).
Regarding claim 2, Girimonte discloses there is a top surface capable of securing the cover thereto, and which top surface is planar (see figure 5, item 112 and paragraph 47 which discloses thermal sealing of the film onto the upper surface 112).
Regarding claim 4, Girimonte discloses that the cover includes a flexible film (because the film can be a plastic pouch (see paragraph 47).
Regarding claim 5, Girimonte discloses that the food products are of a complementary shape to the pockets (see figure 7 and paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 6, Girimonte discloses the food products are cylindrically shaped and elongate (see figure 7 and paragraph 38).
Regarding claims 7-9, Girimonte discloses that the cover is heat sealed to the top surface of the compartment (see paragraph 47 which discloses thermal sealing of the film onto the upper surface 112). It is noted that claim 9 is not clear in light of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112b but has been rejected based on the compartment including a top surface and the cover heat sealed to the top surface of the compartment.
Regarding claim 13, as shown in figure 5 and 7, the compartment has a periphery that is rectangular.
Regarding claim 16, Girimonte discloses that the pockets are elongate and parallel to one another (see figure 5 and 7).
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claims 1-3 and 16.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 6.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 4.
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 7-9, 11, 12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King (US 3216832) in view of Seiferth (US 3647485).
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claims 1-3 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102a1, which discloses a vacuum package comprising a compartment with a plurality of elongate parallel pockets defined by semi-cylindrical walls and having a planar top surface; a plurality of food products with one food product housed in each pocket, a cover sealed to the top surface and enclosing the compartment to define an interior and a vacuum in the interior.
Regarding claims 7-9, King teaches a cover sealed to a top surface of the compartment.
Claims 7-9 and 17 differ from King in specifically reciting that the cover is heat sealed to the compartment at a top surface of the compartment
Seiferth teaches a vacuum sealed package (see column 11, lines 45-52) having a cover that is vacuum sealed to a compartment that includes a plurality of pockets (see figure 7, item 94; see column 11, lines 45-52 which teaches vacuum sealing and therefore a vacuum in the interior of the package). Seiferth’s cover has the same periphery as that of the container (see figure 5) and further teaches that the seal is a heat seal that allows for the cover to be peeled from the compartment (see the abstract, “Preferably, during seal formation, the seal interface is heated to a temperature between the melt temperature of the film materials…to provide improved sealing without destroying the breakaway property or the peelability of the seal”). As shown in figure 5 and 11, the cover and the compartment have the same periphery.
Since Seiferth also teaches that the package is a vacuum sealed package and therefore has a vacuum in the interior, to modify King who does not provide any specificity as to how the cover has been specifically sealed to the top surface of the compartment, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, based on conventional expedients for how one can seal a vacuum package while still allowing access to the contents.
Regarding claim 11, Seiferth teaches that the cover is heat sealed to the compartment, as discussed above with respect to claims 7-9 and 17, and further teaches a portion of the heat seal being inward of the periphery of the compartment (see figure 9 and the heat seal at 98 and 101 in the flange region that is inward of the periphery near 102 and 103; see also column 8, lines 26-37).
Regarding claim 12, Seiferth teaches that the cover has at least one portion that is not heat sealed to the compartment and is usable to peel the cover from the compartment (see figure 8, item 102 and 103 and column 8, lines 38-44).
To therefore modify King and to provide the heat seal with a portion that is inward of the periphery of the compartment and such that the cover has at least one portion that is not heat sealed to the compartment would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of providing a portion of the cover and the compartment that remain separated from each other and can serve to help peel away the cover from the compartment, for accessing the contents of the package.
Regarding claim 18, King discloses the food products are cylindrically shaped and elongate (see figure 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 19, King discloses that the cover includes a flexible film (see figure 2, item 12, which is a film that is flexible since mold 27 can shape the film).
Regarding claim 20, King teaches a vacuum package for housing a plurality of cylindrical food products comprising: a compartment including a plurality of elongate parallel pockets defined by semi-cylindrical walls, the compartment including a top surface and a periphery, as discussed above with respect to claims 1, 3 and 16; a plurality of cylindrical food products with only one food product housed in each pocket (see King’s figures); a flexible film sealed to the top surface to enclose the compartment and define an interior, the flexible film has a periphery that is the same shape as the periphery of the compartment, as discussed above with respect to claims 1, 3, 4 and 15.
Regarding the package having the flexible film heat sealed to the top surface and having a portion that is non-heat sealed at the periphery of the compartment so as to be lifted from the periphery of the compartment to gain access to the interior,” the claim differs from King in this regard. However, Seiferth teaches using a heat seal for sealing a vacuum package and also providing non-heat sealed portions at the periphery of the flexible film to allow the film to be peeled away from the compartment, as discussed above with respect to claims 7-9, 11, 12 and 17.
Since Seiferth also teaches that the package is a vacuum sealed package and therefore has a vacuum in the interior, to modify King who does not provide any specificity as to how the cover has been sealed to the top surface of the compartment, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, based on conventional expedients for how one can seal a vacuum package while still allowing access to the contents; and for the purpose of providing a portion of the cover and the compartment that remain separated from each other and can serve to help peel away the cover from the compartment, for accessing the contents of the package.
Claims 10, 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girimonte (US 20210179312) in view of Garwood (US 20030185948) and Pawlick (US 20080138473).
Regarding claim 10, Girimonte teaches that the pouch 702 that has been heat sealed to the upper surface 112 of tray 100 has a shape that is substantially similar to the underside of the tray (see paragraph 47). This therefore teaches and suggests that the compartment and the cover can have the same periphery.
Nonetheless, claim 10 differs in specifically reciting “wherein the compartment has a periphery and wherein the cover as the same periphery.”
Garwood teaches an overwrap film (see figure 35 and 36, item 920 and paragraph 583) which can take the same shape as the peripheral flange of the tray (see figure 36, item 944). At paragraph 587, Garwood also teaches that the outer cover 920 can be sealed to the tray at the flange.
Pawlick also teaches a pouch or overwrap (paragraph 34 and figure 2, item 203) which can be heat sealed to a flange of a tray (see figure 4, item 404 and paragraph 36) such that the compartment has a periphery and the overwrap would have had the same periphery.
To therefore modify Girimonte and to provide the cover with a periphery that is the same as that of the compartment would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, based on conventional designs for how to cover a tray with an overwrap while keeping the contents sealed therein.
Regarding claim 11, since Girimonte teaches a planar flange to which the cover is heat sealed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that some portion of the heat seal irrespective of its specific size would have been inward of the (outermost) periphery of the compartment.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, in view of the combination as applied to claim 10 and in view of Girimonte teaching that the tray can be rectangular, the combination is teaching and suggesting the cover having a periphery that is rectangular and where the compartment and the cover have peripheries that are the same shape.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girimonte (US 20210179312) in view of Raganathan (US 8541081).
Regarding claim 10, Girimonte teaches that the pouch 702 that has been heat sealed to the upper surface 112 of tray 100 has a shape that is substantially similar to the underside of the tray (see paragraph 47). This therefore teaches and suggests that the compartment and the cover can have the same periphery.
Nonetheless, claim 10 differs in specifically reciting “wherein the compartment has a periphery and wherein the cover as the same periphery.”
Raganathan teaches another expedient for vacuuming sealing a tray comprising food (see figure 1 and 2 and column 5, lines 35-46 which discloses vacuumizing or backflushing and therefore teaching a vacuum in the interior), is to use a sealing film that is heat sealed to the planar top flange of the tray (see figure 2 and column 3, lines 34; column 5, lines 28-34). As shown in figure 1 and 7, the cover and the tray have the same periphery.
To therefore modify Girimonte and use a sealing film that can be vacuum sealed to the top flange of the tray would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, based on a substitution of one expedient for another, both recognized to be useful for sealing a tray comprising food with a cover while maintaining a vacuum within the interior.
Regarding claim 11, since Girimonte teaches a planar flange to which the cover is heat sealed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that some portion of the heat seal irrespective of its specific size would have been inward of the (outermost) periphery of the compartment. It is further noted that as shown in figure 3 and the heat seal between 38 and 18 and as shown in figure 6 and 7, Raganathan also teaches a heat seal that has a “portion” that can be inward of the periphery of the compartment.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girimonte (US 20210179312) in view of Raganathan (US 8541081) as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of Seiferth (US 3647485).
Regarding claim 12, the Girimonte and Raganathan have been relied on as discussed above with respect to claim 10.
Claim 12 differs from Girimonte in specifically reciting that the cover has at least one portion that is not heat sealed to the compartment.
However, Raganathan also teaches that the cover can have one portion that is not heat sealed to the compartment (see figure 7, item 54 and 18), which Raganathan teaches need not have a heat seal, as taught on column 8, lines 18-27, where there is no seal at the pull tab 54. Seiferth also teaches that the cover has at least one portion that is not heat sealed to the compartment and is usable to peel the cover from the compartment (see figure 8, item 102 and 103 and column 8, lines 38-44).
To therefore modify the combination as applied to claim 10 in view of Raganathan and to include a portion of the cover that is not heat sealed would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as taught by Raganathan and Seiferth, for the purpose of providing a portion of the cover that can be gripped for facilitating removal of the cover.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected for the reasons given above with respect to claims 1, 2, 10, 12 and 16.
That is, Girimonte discloses a vacuum package (see paragraph 49), for containing a plurality of food products (see figure 4, 6 and 7 and item 2 in figure 7) comprising: a compartment including a plurality of pockets defined by semi-cylindrical walls (see figure 5 and paragraph 35, “semi-cylindrical shape”); a plurality of food products with one food product housed in each pocket (see figure 7); a cover enclosing the compartment to define an interior (see paragraph 47 where a film is vacuum sealed to the tray such that the film bonds to the upper surface 112 of the tray); and a vacuum in the interior (see at least, the abstract and paragraph 47 where the air is vacuumed out of the pouch, therefore disclosing a vacuum in the interior).
Girimonte discloses there is a top surface of the compartment to which is secured a cover thereto, and which top surface is planar (see figure 5, item 112 and paragraph 47 which discloses thermal sealing of the film onto the upper surface 112). This is also taught by Girimonte in view of Raganathan.
Girimonte also discloses that the pockets are elongate and parallel to one another (see figure 5 and 7).
Regarding a flexible film heat sealed to the top surface and the flexible film having a periphery that is the same shape as the periphery of the compartment and having a portion that is non-heat sealed at the periphery of the compartment, the combination of Girimonte and Raganathan teaches this structure as applied to claims 10 and 12 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 5724787 discloses semi-cylindrical walls defining a plurality of pockets used to hold elongate, cylindrically shaped food products in a parallel arrangement (figure 2 and 9).
US 20110124276 discloses semi-cylindrical walls defining a plurality of pockets used to hold elongate, cylindrically shaped food products in a parallel arrangement (figure 3-5).
US 20180288961 teaches elongate, cylindrically shaped foods housed in a parallel arrangement, each within a semi-cylindrical shaped pocket (see figure 1 and 3 and figure 3, item 45).
US 20240308723 discloses elongate foods arranged in parallel within pockets of a compartment (see figure 2 and paragraph 15).
US RE31571 and US 4232787 disclose a compartment with pockets having semi-cylindrical walls, each of which house a cylindrically shaped, elongate food in a parallel arrangement (see figure 2) and with a cover vacuum sealed to the compartment (‘571: column 3, lines 13-24; ‘787: column 3, lines 11-22).
US 4273815 discloses a compartment with a plurality of pockets having semi-cylindrical walls (Figure 7) such that cylindrically shaped, elongate foods are each housed within one of the pockets in a parallel arrangement (see figure 5, 7 and 8).
US 2816038 discloses a tray with semi-circular shaped walls each of which define a pocket into which an elongate cylindrical shape food is arranged in parallel (see figure 1 and 2).
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