Obviousness

To perform an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103, specific prior art references are required. The previously generated "Prior art" section explicitly states: "Since the full list of 'References Cited' from the patent document is not provided in the current context, I cannot provide a detailed analysis of each prior art reference, its description, and which claims it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102. I would need access to the complete patent document's 'References Cited' section to perform this part of the analysis."

Without access to the specific prior art references cited by or against US patent 10423918B2 during its prosecution, it is not possible to:

1. Identify concrete combinations of prior art references.
2. Determine how those specific combinations would render the claims of US10423918B2 obvious.
3. Articulate the specific motivation a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have had to combine those particular references to arrive at the claimed invention.

A proper obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires a detailed comparison of the claimed invention to the teachings of specific prior art documents, considering factors such as the scope and content of the prior art, differences between the prior art and the claims, and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. The "Prior art keywords" (product, food, product containers, containers, computer) and the general description of the invention provide context but are insufficient to identify specific anticipation or obviousness arguments without the actual prior art documents.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested analysis of obviousness for US patent 10423918B2 without the specific "References Cited" information from the patent itself.