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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 08/07/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 1, 3, 19 have been amended; claims 5, 10, 12-18, 20 have been withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-9, 11 and 19 are examined as follow.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 08/07/2025 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments. Specifically, the independent claims 1 and 19 are now rejected by the newly cited reference Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0247208 A1, newly cited, hereinafter Kim’208) as a primary reference. See detailed rejections in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below.
However, in response to Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previously cited reference Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0079573 A1, previously cited, hereinafter Kim’573), Applicant’s arguments filed 08/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant’s Arguments: Regarding the previously cited reference Kim’573 (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0079573 A1, hereinafter Kim’573) with respect to independent claims 1 and 19:
Applicant alleged: “Kim describes a grill plate (or hot pot) having an inner cooking body and an outer skirt that together form an annular passage that is noticeably narrower at the top than at the bottom. Combustion gases created by the heating agent within the base pocket, travel upward through this tapered space, and leave through a lateral opening near the plate's upper edge. Although the drawings show a taper, the specification never explains the reason for that geometry-there is no teaching that the taper is sized to preserve velocity, compensate for cooling-gas density, or create smooth flow. The passage of Kim is to vent the heat unit, not increase the heat transfer to the pan. Moreover, the inner and outer walls remain separate components; no ribs or casting features are provided to conduct heat between them.”, see details on page 11 of the Remarks dated 08/07/2025.
Examiner’s Response:
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). In this case, the newly prior art Kim’208 (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0247208 A1) discloses substantially all limitations recited in the independent claims 1 and 19, including a channel formed between inner wall and outer wall of the cooking container/vessel to guide gas flow during cooking/heating operation. However, Kim’208 does not explicitly disclose the channel is a tapered channel. The secondary reference Kim’573 teaches a tapered channel formed between inner wall and outer wall of the cooking vessel. Furthermore, it is noted that a gas decreases in volume when it cools because as the temperature drops, the gas molecules lose kinetic energy, causing them to move slower and collide less frequently with the container walls, effectively taking up less space and resulting in a smaller overall volume. It is further noted that since both of the Instant Application and the prior art Kim’573 have the channel being tapered along a length of the second and third heat conductive surfaces; thus, the Instant Application and the prior art Kim’573 are similar apparatuses. Therefore, they are capable of proving similar results. Additionally, since references Kim’208 and Kim’573 are in the same field of cooking container; thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine them. Therefore, in combination, by making the Kim’208 channel being tapered along length of the second and third heat conductive surfaces, as taught by Kim’573, Kim’208 in view of Kim’573 tapered channel is capable to promote a continuous flow of gas through the channel as the gas cools and decreases in volume. Accordingly, Kim’208 in view of Kim’573 properly teaches all limitations recited in the independent claims 1 and 19, see detailed rejections in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the bottom surface” in line 17 and “said bottom surface” in line 18. These limitations should read “the bottom cooking surface” or “said bottom cooking surface” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 4).
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the bottom surface” in lines 1-2. This should read “the bottom cooking surface” or “said bottom cooking surface” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 4).
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the base” in lines 3, 6. This should read “the solid base” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 19 (line 2).
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the tapered channel” in lines 11-12. This should read “the channel” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 19 (line 6).
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 1-4, 6-9, 11 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 1 recites the limitation “the opposing side” in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “opposing side” recited previously.
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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 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.
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 1, 6-9, 11 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0247208 A1, newly cited, hereinafter Kim’208) in view of Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0079573 A1, previously cited, hereinafter Kim’573).
Regarding claim 1, Kim’208 discloses a cooking vessel (pot 40, Kim’208 Fig.4) configured to enable improved airflow around heating surfaces resulting in enhanced heating and cooking efficiency (Kim’208 Par.0010 discloses: “an object of the present invention is to provide a double heating-type pot, which has air inlet holes at an upper portion of the pot to introduce heated air into the pot, thus allowing heat conducted through an outer surface of the pot and convection heat transferred through the air inlet holes to eliminate a temperature difference in the pot, therefore reducing cooking time and evenly heating food.”), the cooking vessel (pot 40, Kim’208 Fig.4) comprising:
a base (bottom wall of the container 41, Kim’208 annotated Figs.4-5 below) defining a bottom cooking surface (bottom cooking surface of the bottom wall of the container 41, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) representing a first heat conductive surface (first heat conductive surface, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) (bottom wall of the container 41 defining a bottom cooking surface representing a first heat conductive surface because Kim’208 Par.0027 discloses: “Preferably, the pot is made of a material having excellent heat conductivity, such as stainless steel or aluminum alloy.”);
an inner wall (side wall of the container 41, Kim’208 annotated Figs.4-5 below) extending upwardly away from the base (bottom wall of the container 41, Kim’208 annotated Figs.4-5 below), the inner wall (side wall of the container 41, Kim’208 annotated Figs.4-5 below) defining an outer surface (outer surface of the side wall of the container 41, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) representing a second heat conductive surface (second heat conductive surface, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) (Kim’208 Par.0027 discloses: “Preferably, the pot is made of a material having excellent heat conductivity, such as stainless steel or aluminum alloy.”; therefore, the outer surface of the side wall of the container 41 representing heat conductive surface); and
an outer wall (outer walls of the guide ducts 64, Kim’208 annotated Figs.4-5 below) at least partially surrounding the inner wall (side wall of the container 41, Kim’208 annotated Figs.4-5 below) and offset from the base (bottom wall of the container 41, Kim’208 annotated Figs.4-5 below) to define a axial gap (axial gap, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below), the outer wall (outer walls of the guide ducts 64, Kim’208 annotated Figs.4-5 below) defining an inner surface (inner surface of each of the outer walls of the guide ducts 64, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) representing a third heat conductive surface (Kim’208 Par.0010 discloses: “an object of the present invention is to provide a double heating-type pot, which has air inlet holes at an upper portion of the pot to introduce heated air into the pot, thus allowing heat conducted through an outer surface of the pot and convection heat transferred through the air inlet holes to eliminate a temperature difference in the pot, therefore reducing cooking time and evenly heating food.”; therefore, the inner surface of each of the outer walls of the guide ducts 64 representing heat conductive surface),
wherein the second (second heat conductive surface, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) and third heat conductive surfaces (third heat conductive surface, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) cooperate to define a channel (channel, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) through which a flow of gas is directed (as shown in Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below or as indicated by Kim’208 Par.0032: “a guide duct 64 is provided on a sidewall of the container 41 to communicate with a space defined between each pair of guide protrusions 62, thus guiding heated air to the air inlet holes 43.”),
the channel (channel, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) having a lower opening (lower opening, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below), wherein the bottom surface (bottom cooking surface of the bottom wall of the container 41, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) of the base (bottom wall of the container 41, Kim’208 annotated Figs.4-5 below) is disposed on one side of the lower opening (lower opening, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below), said bottom surface (bottom cooking surface of the bottom wall of the container 41, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) defines at least one of a filleted or chamfered peripheral edge (it is noted that the limitation “at least one of a filleted or chamfered peripheral edge” is in alternative form; thus, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Kim’208 teaches a filleted peripheral edge as shown in Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) configured to promote adhesion of a flow of gas over the first (first heat conductive surface, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) and second heat conductive surfaces (second heat conductive surface, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) (It is noted that since both of the Instant Application and the prior art Kim’208 have the bottom surface of the base defining filleted peripheral edge and the side wall extending upwardly from the base, thus, the Instant Application and the prior art Kim’208 are similar apparatuses; therefore, they are capable of proving similar results. Thus, the prior art Kim’208 discloses the filleted peripheral edge configured to promote adhesion of a flow of gas over the first and second heat conductive surfaces), and
the outer wall (outer walls of the guide ducts 64, Kim’208 annotated Figs.4-5 below) forming the opposing side of the lower opening (lower opening, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) (Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below shows the outer walls of the guide ducts 64 forming the outer side of lower opening) and wherein the second (second heat conductive surface, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) and third heat conductive surfaces (third heat conductive surface, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) further cooperate to define an exit nozzle (exit nozzle, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) having an area relative to a cross sectional area of the channel (channel, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) (Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below shows the exit nozzle having an area relative to a cross sectional area of the channel), the exit nozzle (exit nozzle, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) configured to enable the continuous flow of gas to exit the channel (channel, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) (Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below shows the exit nozzle configured to enable the continuous flow of gas to exit the channel).
PNG
media_image1.png
928
1151
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
915
1261
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim’208 does not explicitly disclose:
the channel being tapered along a length of the second and third heat conductive surfaces to promote a continuous flow of gas through the channel as the gas cools and decreases in volume
Kim’573 teaches a cooking vessel (heating container 100, Kim’573 Fig.2) comprising:
the channel (tapered channel, Kim’573 annotated Fig.2 below) being tapered along a length of the second (the second conductive surface is the outer surface of the inner wall, Kim’573 annotated Fig.2 below) and third heat conductive surfaces (the third conductive surface is the inner surface of the outer wall, Kim’573 annotated Fig.2 below) to promote a continuous flow of gas through the channel (tapered channel, Kim’573 annotated Fig.2 below) as the gas cools and decreases in volume (it is noted that a gas decreases in volume when it cools because as the temperature drops, the gas molecules lose kinetic energy, causing them to move slower and collide less frequently with the container walls, effectively taking up less space and resulting in a smaller overall volume; it is further noted that since both of the Instant Application and the prior art Kim’573 have the channel being tapered along a length of the second and third heat conductive surfaces; thus, the Instant Application and the prior art Kim’573 are similar apparatuses; therefore, they are capable of proving similar results; therefore, the prior art Kim’573 teaches the channel being tapered along a length of the second and third heat conductive surfaces to promote a continuous flow of gas through the channel as the gas cools and decreases in volume)
PNG
media_image3.png
864
1344
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’208, by making the channel being tapered along a length of the second and third heat conductive surfaces, as taught by Kim’573, in order to enhance heat transfer efficiency because the tapered channel accelerates the flow of gas as the gas passing through the channel, thus, improving heat transfer to the cooking surface; therefore, less energy is wasted, leading to lower energy consumption and faster cooking times.
Regarding claim 6, Kim’208 in view of Kim’573 teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Kim’208 also discloses:
wherein the outer wall (outer walls of the guide ducts 64, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) further defines an outer surface representing a fourth heat conductive surface (external surface of each of the outer walls of the guide ducts 64 representing a fourth heat conductive surface, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
915
1261
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Kim’208 in view of Kim’573 teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Kim’208 also discloses:
wherein the cooking vessel (pot 40, Kim’208 Fig.4) is a unitary member (as shown in Kim’208 Fig.4), wherein the outer wall (outer walls of the guide ducts 64, Kim’208 annotated Fig.4 below) is operably coupled to at least one of the inner wall (side wall of the container 41, Kim’208 annotated Fig.4 below) or base (bottom wall of the container 41, Kim’208 annotated Fig.4 below) without the use of fasteners or adhesives (It is noted that the limitation “fasteners or adhesives” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Kim’208 annotated Fig.4 below shows the outer walls of the guide ducts 64 is operably coupled to the side wall of the container 41 and the bottom wall of container 41 without the use of fasteners).
PNG
media_image1.png
928
1151
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Kim’208 in view of Kim’573 teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Kim’208 also discloses:
wherein the outer wall (outer walls of the guide ducts 64, Kim’208 annotated Fig.4 below) is operably coupled to at least one of the inner wall (side wall of the container 41, Kim’208 annotated Fig.4 below) or base (bottom wall of the container 41, Kim’208 annotated Fig.4 below) by one or more ribs (ribs, Kim’208 annotated Fig.4 below) (it is noted that ribs are the side walls of the guide ducts 64, Kim’208 annotated Fig.4 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
928
1151
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Kim’208 in view of Kim’573 teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Kim’208 also discloses:
wherein the outer wall (outer walls of the guide ducts 64, Kim’208 annotated Fig.4 below) further defines an outer surface (external surfaces of the outer walls of the guide ducts 64, Kim’208 annotated Fig.4 below) configured in at least one of a circular, oval, elliptical, square, rectangular, polygonal, or irregular shape (it is noted that the limitation “at least one of a circular, oval, elliptical, square, rectangular, polygonal, or irregular shape” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Kim’208 discloses the external surfaces of the outer walls of the guide ducts 64 configured in irregular shape).
Regarding claim 11, Kim’208 in view of Kim’573 teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the exit nozzle has an area not less than 25% of an average cross sectional area of the channel.
PNG
media_image2.png
915
1261
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitation wherein the exit nozzle has an area not less than 25% of an average cross sectional area of the channel, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see the Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 above where the reference Kim’208 teaches certain average cross sectional area of the exit nozzle), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, Kim’208 discloses certain average cross sectional area of the exit nozzle, and having a specific average cross sectional area of the exit nozzle is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the average cross sectional area of the exit nozzle is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the average cross sectional area of the exit nozzle would change the area and space where heated air escapes during heating/cooking operation, which affects the flow of air between inner wall and outer wall of the cooking vessel and thus, affecting the heat transfer efficiency. An exit nozzle with an optimized average cross sectional area can improve the heat transfer efficiency, thus, reducing cooking time and evenly heating food. Therefore, the average cross sectional area of the exit nozzle is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kim’208 in view of Kim’573 exit nozzle by making the area of the exit nozzle not less than 25% of an average cross sectional area of the channel as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II (A).
Regarding claim 19, Kim’208 discloses a cooking vessel (pot 40, Kim’208 Fig.4) comprising:
a solid base (bottom wall of the container 41, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below);
an inner wall (side wall of the container 41, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) surrounding the base (bottom wall of the container 41, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) extending upwardly away from the base (bottom wall of the container 41, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) (Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below shows that the side wall of the container 41 extending upwardly away from the bottom wall of the container 41, specifically, they are away from each other by the filleted edge, this feature is the same as defined in the Instant Application, see Figs.3-4 of the Instant Application); and
an outer wall (outer walls of the guide ducts 64, Kim’208 annotated Figs.4-5 below) connected by a plurality of ribs (ribs, Kim’208 annotated Fig.4 below) (it is noted that ribs are the side walls of the guide ducts 64, Kim’208 annotated Fig.4 below) to the inner wall (side wall of the container 41, Kim’208 annotated Figs.4-5 below),
wherein said inner wall (side wall of the container 41, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) and outer wall (outer walls of the guide ducts 64, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) form a channel (channel, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) axially offset from the base (bottom wall of the container 41, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below), said outer wall (outer walls of the guide ducts 64, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) forming an outer vertical boundary to the channel (outer walls of the guide ducts 64 forming an outer vertical boundary to the channel, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) and,
said channel (channel, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) further including and an exit nozzle (exit nozzle, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) having an area relative to a cross sectional area of the channel (channel, Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below) (Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 below shows the exit nozzle having an area relative to a cross sectional area of the channel).
PNG
media_image6.png
814
1157
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
928
1151
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Kim’208 does not explicitly disclose:
the inner wall forming a tapered inner boundary, and thus, forming the tapered channel
Kim’573 teaches a cooking vessel (heating container 100, Kim’573 Fig.2):
the inner wall (inner wall, Kim’573 annotated Fig.2 below) forming a tapered inner boundary (as shown in Kim’573 annotated Fig.2 below), wherein the inner (inner wall, Kim’573 annotated Fig.2 below) and outer walls (outer wall, Kim’573 annotated Fig.2 below) cooperate to define a tapered channel (tapered channel, Kim’573 annotated Fig.2 below).
PNG
media_image8.png
864
1344
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’208, by making the inner wall forming tapered inner boundary, as taught by Kim’573, in order to enhance heat transfer efficiency because the tapered channel accelerates the flow of gas as the gas passing through the channel, thus, improving heat transfer to the cooking surface; therefore, less energy is wasted, leading to lower energy consumption and faster cooking times.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0247208 A1, newly cited, hereinafter Kim’208) in view of Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0079573 A1, previously cited, hereinafter Kim’573), and further in view of Imura et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0370176 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, Kim’208 in view of Kim’573 teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the peripheral edge of the bottom surface of the base has a radius of between about 0.125 inches and about 1.50 inches.
Imura teaches a cooking vessel (Imura Figs.1, 2a-2b):
wherein the peripheral edge (peripheral edge 27, Imura Fig.2b) of the bottom surface (bottom surface, Imura annotated Fig.2b below) of the base (the base defining a bottom surface, Imura annotated Fig.2b below) has a radius of between about 0.125 inches and about 1.50 inches (Imura Par.0026 teaches: “the sides curving up from the bottom of base 20 along a 0.500 inch radius 27”; therefore, Imura teaches the radius of 0.500 inches, which is between about 0.125 inches and about 1.50 inches as required by the claim).
PNG
media_image9.png
527
932
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’208 in view of Kim’573, by making the peripheral edge of the bottom surface of the base has a radius of 0.500 inches, as taught by Imura, in order to improve heat distribution because if the radius of the peripheral edge is too small, the heat might be concentrated at the bottom of the cooking vessel, which leads to overheating; if the radius of the peripheral edge is too large, the heat might not be transferred efficiently to the sides of the cooking vessel, thus, reducing cooking performance. Additionally, the modification would provide easier cooking and cleaning processes because the 0.500 inches radius is an optimized design to allow easy stirring and food removal while preventing food from getting stuck in sharp corners.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0247208 A1, newly cited, hereinafter Kim’208) in view of Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0079573 A1, previously cited, hereinafter Kim’573), and further in view of Gossens et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0247143 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 3, Kim’208 in view of Kim’573 teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, and also teaches:
wherein the channel (it is noted that Kim’208 in view of Kim’573 already teaches the tapered channel, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above) has a lower opening taper angle (it is noted that Kim’208 in view of Kim’573 teaches a lower opening taper angle because in combination, the lower opening as shown in Kim’208 annotated Fig.5 in the rejection of claim 1 is the bottom opening of the tapered channel)
Kim’208 in view of Kim’573 does not explicitly teach:
the lower opening taper angle measuring between about 5° and about 45°.
Gossens teaches a cooking vessel (600, Gossens Figs.14-17)
wherein the channel (it is noted that Kim’208 in view of Kim’573 already teaches the tapered channel, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above) has a lower opening taper angle (it is noted that Kim’208 in view of Kim’573 already teaches lower opening taper angle because in combination, the lower opening is the bottom opening of the tapered channel, as explained previously) measuring between about 5° and about 45° (Gossens Par.0017 teaches: “a pot may have a draft or taper angle of equal to or greater than about 5 degrees and equal to or less than about 15 degrees, such as an approximate 6 degree or an approximate 8 degree taper or draft from an upper diameter to a lower diameter so as to allow the pot to fit within another pot or frying pan.”; therefore, Gossens teaches tapered angle measuring about equal to or greater than about 5 degrees and equal to or less than about 15 degrees, which is between about 5° and about 45° as required by the claim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’208 in view of Kim’573, by making the lower opening taper angle of the channel to be equal to or greater than about 5 degrees and equal to or less than about 15 degrees, as taught by Gossens, in order to allow the inner pot to fit within another pot or frying pan, as recognized by Gossens [Gossens, Par.0017]. Furthermore, the modification would enhance heat transfer because 5°-15° provides gradual tapered angle which allows better circulation of the heat between the outer wall and the inner wall of the cooking vessel, ensuring evenly heat distribution; thus, making the cooking vessel more efficient.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0247208 A1, newly cited, hereinafter Kim’208) in view of Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0079573 A1, previously cited, hereinafter Kim’573), and further in view of Park (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0150840 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, Kim’208 in view of Kim’573 teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the exit nozzle defines a peripheral gap measuring between about 0.0625 inches to about 1.00 inches.
Park teaches a cooking vessel (multi-layered container 300, Park Fig.3):
wherein the exit nozzle (it is noted that Kim’208 in view of Kim’573 teaches the exit nozzle is formed as to have the area relative to the cross sectional area of the channel formed between the inner wall and the outer wall of the cooking vessel, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above) defines a peripheral gap measuring between about 0.0625 inches to about 1.00 inches (Park Par.0091 teaches “the distance between the outer and inner shells 310 and 315 is approximately 15 to 25 mm, and, in some embodiments, is about 20 mm”; it is noted that 20 mm is equal to approximately 0.787 inches; therefore, Park teaches the exit nozzle defines a peripheral gap measuring about 0.787 inches, which is between about 0.0625 inches to about 1.00 inches as required by the claim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’208 in view of Kim’573, by making the peripheral gap of the exit nozzle about 0.787 inches, as taught by Park, in order to provide sufficient space for the heated air to flow smoothly, ensuring heated air has a sufficient space/area to exit; thereby, providing the efficient escape of heated air from the channel, and thus, preventing overheating.
Conclusion
The prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Clarke (U.S. Patent No. 6,609,627 B1) discloses a container comprising an inner thermoformed vessel and an outer thermoformed vessel, arranged the one within the other.
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 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 THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 11/01/2025
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761