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 Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1:
The phrase “The “JDC 6-inch to 8-inch Drip Pan and Heating Element Extender” in line 1 should be read “A 6-inch to 8-inch drip pan and heating element extender” because it is the first instance of the drip pan and heating element extender being recited. The quotation marks shall not be used in the claim. Moreover, abbreviation “JDC” is used in the claim but the specification does not explain what it is, as best understood it appears to refer to inventor’s initial. It is suggested to remove “JDC” to avoid confusion.
The period “.” in line 3 shall not be used because it should only be used to indicate the end of the claim sentence. It is suggested to read “, wherein the 6 inch to 8 inch drip pan and heating element extender has high temperature and wear resistance.
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 1-2 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1:
The limitation "high temperature and wear resistance" in lines 3-4 renders the claim indefinite because the term “high” is a relative term. The term “high” in the context claimed, is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. At what temperature is considered high temperature? At what wear resistance is considered high wear resistance?
In claim 2:
Claim 2 as filed is written as an independent claim but it appears to refer to the same drip pan and heating element extender previously recited in claim 1.
For the purpose of substantive examination, it is presumed that the drip pan and heating element extender of claim 2 is intended to further limit the drip pan and heating element extender of claim 1. It is suggested to read “The 6-inch to 8-inch drip pan and heating element extender of claim 1, wherein the 6-inch to 8-inch drip pan and heating element extender fits 6-inch range holes but accepts 8-inch heating elements”.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drugmand (US 3644710) in view of Eckman (US 5780817)
Regarding Claim 1, Drugmand discloses A "JDC 6-inch to 8-inch Drip Pan and Heating Element Extender" (support includes an adapter ring portion 20, bowl portion 21 and spider portion 22; figs. 3, 5 and 7) (col. 2, lines 10-22 and 45-70. It is noted “JDC 6-inch to 8-inch Drip Pan and Heating Element Extender” is a statement of intended use. The support 20, 21, and 22 of Drugmand is the drip pan that is capable of supporting the heating element 10 that is larger than what is shown in fig. 3 of Drugmand because the heating element is mounted above the support by inserting protrusions of the heating element into the slots 32, 33 of the support. In other words, the heating element is not confined to fit within the space of the support but rather it is mounted above the support).
Drugmand does not disclose the 6-inch to 8-inch drip pan and heating element extender is stainless steel in construction and have an energy gathering effect that reduces the speed of temperature loss during cooking which saves time and energy. The "JDC 6 Inch to 8 Inch Drip Pan and Heating element Extender" has high temperature and wear resistance.
However, Eckman discloses a housing bowl can be made from stainless steel (col. 2, lines 59-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support of Drugmand to be made from stainless steel as taught by Eckman, because it is conventionally known that the stainless steel can withstand high temperature and corrosion-resistant (col. 3, lines 41-45 of Eckman).
Regarding the limitation “…have an energy gathering effect that reduces the speed of temperature loss during cooking which saves time and energy….has high temperature and wear resistance”, it is noted that prior art teaches all the structure limitation of the claim already, and when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112). In this case, the drip pan of the modification is made from stainless steel, which is the same as the claimed drip pan. The claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
Regarding Claim 2, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth. Drugmand discloses the support/drip pan fits within the opening 24 in the stove top (col. 2, lines 15-20). The modification does not disclose the "JDC 6-inch to 8-inch Drip Pan and Heating Element Extender" fits 6-inch range holes but accepts 8-inch heating elements.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 Ila). Utilizing the drip pan of Drugmand to fit 6-inch range holes is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, modifying the drip pan of Drugmand to fit 6-inch range holes is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. Modifying the drip pan of Drugmand to fit 6-inch range holes would allow the drip pan to support a 6-inch heating element to heat a small pot i.e. 6-inch pot thereby saving power consumption when heating the small pot is all needed.
Regarding the limitation “The “JDC 6-inch to 8-inch drip pan and heating element extender… accepts 8-inch heating elements”, the limitation recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are “accepts 8-inch heating elements”. When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus, MPEP 2114. In this case, the drip pan of Drugmand can support the 8-inch heating elements or different sizes of heating elements to heat various pot of different sizes (col. 2, lines 46-70; figs. 3 and 5. It is noted the heating element 10 is supported by the spokes 26’s of the drip pan by inserting 35 of heating element into the opening 32 of the spokes; fig. 5, thereby securing the heating element to the drip pan. The heating element is mounted above the drip pan as seen in fig. 3. It is not confined to fit within the space of the drip pan, but rather sits on top of the drip pan. Therefore, the drip pan can support the heating element that is bigger than the size of the drip pan i.e. 8-inch heating element for the purpose of heating pot with 8-inch heating element, thereby speeding up the cooking process).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brotzki (US 5643481), “Double Bowl Electric Cooktop Cooling”
Eichler (US 5951899), “Burner Assembly Having A Shielded Porcelain Burner Bowl” discloses six inch heating elements and eight inch heating elements, col. 1, lines 10-17.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-6pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BONITA KHLOK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761