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 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) 21-22, 24-26, 29-30 and 41-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiang et al. (US-20170275077-A1).
Chiang discloses:
21. A food container (100) comprising: a base (102) comprising: a food-receiving portion (108) comprising a planar surface (109) that is upwardly facing and has a perimeter; a central well (120) extending into the planar surface; radial grooves (122) extending into the planar surface, the radial grooves extending from the perimeter of the food receiving portion to the central well (Fig. 1B); and an elongated well (128, par. 0059) between at least two adjacent radial grooves, wherein the elongated well is in fluid communication with the at least two adjacent radial grooves (Fig. 2B, fluid can get to the grooves when the container is tipped or enough fluid is in the container).
22. The food container of claim 21, wherein an elongated well is provided between each pair of adjacent radial grooves (Fig. 1B).
24. The food container of claim 21, wherein the elongated well comprises a plurality of elongated wells between adjacent radial grooves, wherein the plurality of elongated wells extend along a circle centered on a center of the central well (Fig. 1B).
25. The food container of claim 24, wherein each elongated well of the plurality of elongated wells is in fluid communication with a radial groove (Fig. 1B, all portion within the base are in fluid communication).
26. The food container of claim 25, wherein each elongated well has first and second sides, the first side being in fluid communication with a radial grove adjacent to the first side of the elongated well and the second side in fluid communication with a radial groove adjacent to the second side (Fig. 1B).
29. The food container of claim 21, wherein the base further comprises a plurality of protrusions (130) extending upward from the planar surface.
30. The food container of claim 29, wherein at least one protrusion of the plurality of protrusions is dome-shaped (Fig. 1B, pars. 0059, 0060).
41. (New) The food container of claim 21, wherein the base comprises compostable fiber (par. 0007).
42. The food container of claim 21, wherein the base comprises plastic (par. 0007).
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) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang et al. (US-20170275077-A1).
Chiang teaches all the claimed limitations as shown above and wherein the elongated well is oblong and that shapes of components of the apparatus can be changed (par. 0059), but fails to specifically teach wherein the shape of the well is a curved obround.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the shape of the well, since the well could still function in the same manner and since such a modification would have been a change in shape of an existing component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 27 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang et al. (US-20170275077-A1) in view of Kirkland et al. (US-20120234717-A1).
Chiang disclose all the claimed limitations as shown above but fails to teach wherein each elongated well is in fluid communication with adjacent radial grooves via second grooves between each radial groove and each elongated well, and wherein the elongated wells and second grooves are provided along the circle centered on the center of the central well.
Kirkland teaches that it is known in the art to connect wells in a container via second grooves (40) between wells (Fig. 1), and wherein the wells and second grooves are provided along the circle centered on a center (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the apparatus with second grooves, as taught by Kirkland, in order to further direct fluid within the apparatus.
Claim(s) 36-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gartz et al. (US-20130313257-A1) in view of Chiang et al. (US-20170275077-A1).
Gartz discloses:
36. A food container (100) comprising: a base (102) comprising: a food-receiving portion comprising a planar surface that is upwardly facing and has a perimeter (Fig. 5A); and a sidewall (at 106) extending upwardly from the base, around the perimeter; and a cover (104) configured to be attached to the base, the cover comprising: at least one wall sized and shaped to form an interior chamber with the base when the cover is engaged with the base, closing the container, the at least one wall having a periphery (Fig. 1); and a tab (130) extending outward from a portion of at least one wall, the tab being configured to fold upward when the cover is attached to the base (Fig. 6B, par. 0046).
Gartz fails to teach the groove and well structure of claim 21.
Chiang teaches a food container (100) comprising: a base (102) comprising: a food-receiving portion (108) comprising a planar surface (109) that is upwardly facing and has a perimeter; a central well (120) extending into the planar surface; radial grooves (122) extending into the planar surface, the radial grooves extending from the perimeter of the food receiving portion to the central well (Fig. 1B); and an elongated well (128, par. 0059) between at least two adjacent radial grooves, wherein the elongated well is in fluid communication with the at least two adjacent radial grooves (Fig. 2B, fluid can get to the grooves when the container is tipped or enough fluid is in the container).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the container of Gartz with the groove and well structure taught by Chiang, in order to preserve food quality and allow for heating.
37. The food container of claim 36, wherein the tab is coupled to at least one wall, via a hinge (Gartz, 114).
38. The food container of claim 37, wherein the hinge comprises a downwardly curved portion between the tab and an upwardly curved portion (Gartz, Fig. 6B, edges of 114).
39. The food container of claim 38, wherein the tab is coupled to an end of the upwardly curved portion (Gartz, Fig. 1).
40. The food container of claim 36, wherein the base further comprises a sidewall (Gartz, at 106) extending upwardly from the base and a second tab (Gartz, 118) extending outward from a portion of the sidewall.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., wherein the well has openings that connect to the grooves) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571)270-5055. 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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights