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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08-04-2022 and 08-26-2022 are acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
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) 17, 30, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by W. E. Tubbs (606,904).
Regarding claim 17, Tubbs discloses a handle element (figs 1-2) for releasable attachment to a cooking vessel, comprising: a support body: a claw provided by a single-arm lever and arranged on the support body (members 2 and 4); a clamping face pair having a first clamping face on the support body and a second clamping face on the claw (members 1 and 3), wherein the claw is pivotable between an open position, in which the two clamping faces are spaced apart from each other (fig 2), and a closed position, in which the two clamping faces are closer together (fig 1); and, a closing lever arranged on the support body, the closing lever being connected to the claw by a rod (member 5) and comprising a cam (member 7) which, as a result of a displacement of the closing lever from a non-usage position into a usage position, displaces the claw from the open position into the closed position (figs 1-2).
Regarding claim 30, Tubbs discloses the claw has an extension with an abutment face matched to a curvature of a wall of the cooking vessel (fig 1).
Regarding claim 34, Tubbs discloses the closing lever is arranged in an overhanging manner on the support body (figs 1-2).
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) 18 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over W. E. Tubbs (606,904) in view of Zemit et al. (6,000,739).
Regarding claim 18, Tubbs teaches a handle element (figs 1-2) for releasable attachment to a cooking vessel, comprising: a support body: a claw provided by a single-arm lever and arranged on the support body (members 2 and 4); a clamping face pair having a first clamping face on the support body and a second clamping face on the claw (members 1 and 3), wherein the claw is pivotable between an open position, in which the two clamping faces are spaced apart from each other (fig 2), and a closed position, in which the two clamping faces are closer together; and a closing mechanism which when actuated displaces the claw from the open position into the closed position (fig 1).
Tubbs does not teach the claw is metal.
Zemit teaches a handle element having metal claw (col 3, lines 59-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the element of Tubbs by using metal claw, as taught by Zemit in order to increase the strength of the element.
Regarding claims 24-25, Tubbs teaches all of the limitations and Zemit teaches the support body (fig 1, member 1) and/or the closing lever is plastic (col 3, lines 52-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the element of Tubbs by using plastic body support, as taught by Zemit in order to increase a heat resistant.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over W. E. Tubbs (606,904)
Regarding claim 32, Tubbs teaches all of the limitations but does not explicitly teach the rod abuts on the claw at a distance of more than two-thirds of a distance between a pivot axis of the claw and the second clamping face. However, as seen in figure 2 annotated below showing the distances relationship.
PNG
media_image1.png
302
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to use the suggestion distance as figure 2 annotated above in order to firmly grasp between the jaws which serves to lift a pan.
Claim(s) 19 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over W. E. Tubbs (606,904) in view of Walker (5,979,104).
Regarding claims 19 and 22, Tubbs teaches a handle element (figs 1-2) for releasable attachment to a cooking vessel, comprising: a support body: a claw provided by a single-arm lever and arranged on the support body (members 2 and 4); a clamping face pair having a first clamping face on the support body and a second clamping face on the claw (members 1 and 3), wherein the claw is pivotable between an open position, in which the two clamping faces are spaced apart from each other (fig 2), and a closed position, in which the two clamping faces are closer together (fig 1); a closing mechanism which when actuated displaces the claw from the open position into the closed position, wherein the spring element is arranged on or associated with a rod that connects the claw to the closing mechanism (figs 1-2).
Tubbs does not teach a spring element arranged to bias the two clamping faces into the open position.
Walker teaches a handle element (fig 13) having a spring element (member 234) arranged to bias the two clamping faces into the open position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the structure of Tubbs by adding a spring of Walker in order to help opening the claims.
Regarding claim 21, Tubbs teaches all the limitations and Walker teaches a spring element that biases the two clamping faces into the open position (fig 13, member 234).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the structure of Tubbs by adding a spring of Walker in order to help opening the claims.
Regarding claim 23, the modified handle Tubbs-Walker discloses the spring element is a helical spring (Walker, member 234).
Claim(s) 26 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over W. E. Tubbs (606,904) in view of Pitzer (3,709,088).
Regarding claims 26 and 28, Tubbs teaches all the limitations and Pitzer teaches the rod is mounted in a rotary bearing so as to be pivotable relative to the closing lever , wherein the rotary bearing is retained axially in relation to the support body so as to provide a radial clearance (fig 11a, member 66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the structure of Tubbs by using Pitzer bearing in order to effectively transmit large tensile loads to fastened objects without damaging them.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over W. E. Tubbs (606,904) and Pitzer (3,709,088) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of A. C. Gilbert et al. (2,031,770).
Regarding claim 27, the modified handle Tubbs-Pitzer teaches all limitations and Gilbert teaches a rotary bearing is a metal rotary bearing (col 3, lines 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the structure of Tubbs by using a metal rotary bearing of Gilbert in order to effectively transmit large tensile loads to fastened objects without damaging them.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over W. E. Tubbs (606,904), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Lautenschalger, Jr. et al. (4,972,546).
Regarding claim 29, Tubbs teaches all the limitations and Lautenschalger teaches a cam is plastic, wherein a metal counter-cam face is provided as an abutment for the cam (claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the structure of Tubbs by using plastic cam with metal surface, as taught by Lautenschalger, in order to provide a smooth, wear-resistant and friction-reducing surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20, 25, and 33 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: none of the prior art in the record discloses the claim invention, especially the limitations “an opening lever associated with the closing lever so as to initiate an opening movement of the closing lever”.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 31 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art in the record discloses the claim invention, especially the limitations “the support body comprises a cutout in which the closing lever is received flush when in the usage position”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4pm.
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, KHOA D. HUYNH can be reached at (571)272-4888. 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.
BAO-THIEU L. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732