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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 12 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12 May 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 11 under § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sadler, Waldburger-2019, and Sudmalis are each directed to substantially different technical problems. Applicant’s arguments do not effectively argue that Sadler and Waldburger-2019 would not have been combined, at least because it does not argue against the rationale for this put forth by the Office.
Applicant correctly points out that Sudmalis refers to a household cooking apparatus (p. 6). However, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive because deep-drawing is generally known as a method of manufacturing (see Cooperative Patent Classification B21D 22/20–30), and the obviousness of the means to manufacture an item, to achieve the advantages derivable from the combination (as argued by the Office with respect to Sadler and Waldburger-2019), would be gauged relative to the difficulty one of ordinary skill in the art would have discerning among known material manipulation methods. Sudmalis is not provided as proof that one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to household cooking apparatuses to derive that deep-drawing was a suitable manner of making the apparatus of Salder modified by Waldburger, but is instead provided as proof that the technique of deep-drawing is in general known to be able to shape metal in a way that would arrive at the construction resulting from Sadler modified by Waldburger. Given that deep-drawing in this instance does not in any way seem particular, the Office finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it ordinary to use such a method to produce the apparatus of Sadler modified by Waldburger.
Applicant argues that the rim of the press cover in Waldburger-2019 is integrally linked to how it is made of plastic, which itself is part of making the rim flexible (p. 7). The Office finds this argument persuasive. While the Office had proffered a rationale to combine the references of, the rim of Waldburger-2019 would encourage fluid to be guided through the perforations (as opposed to outside the edge of the press cover), on review, this rationale does not stand, particularly since it is not taught in Waldburger-2019. Furthermore, Applicant’s remarks about the contradictory features of plastic and metal, in this instance, are well-supported and meaningful.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are also at least substantially persuasive.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sudmalis et al. (US Pub. 2013/0216691).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudmalis et al. (US Pub. 2013/0216691).
Claim 1: Sudmalis discloses a press cover of a cheese mould (understood as intended use; see MPEP § 2111.02.II.), wherein the press cover has a cross-section corresponding to an interior cross-section of the cheese mould (this cheese mould is not positively recited, and the limitation here does not require a structural limitation of the claim) and has a one-walled perforated plate (11, 12, 14) having a plurality of perforations (24), wherein the perforated plate is a perforated sheet made of metal having a circumferential bent rim (14) bent in a pressing direction, wherein the one-walled perforated plate is produced by deep-drawing (¶ 12, “the bottom 12 and the outwardly-angled sides 14 of the pan 11 are formed by deep-drawing an appropriately-sized sheet of metal”).
Sudmalis is arguably not able to perform as a press cover for a mould because its handles 18 would interfere with such a use. However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the pan 11 was likely deep-drawn, and had its perforations made (as described in ¶ 23), prior to installing the handles to prevent the handles from interfering with any means or methods of manipulating the pan during its shaping. Therefore, as the pan, during its manufacture, would more than likely achieve a state of being produced without handles before these handles were attached, Sudmalis is effective evidence that it’s likely that a structure matching the claimed structure would have been in existence prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 11: Sudmalis discloses a method for producing a press cover for a cheese mould (understood as intended use; see MPEP § 2111.02.II.), the cheese mould made of metal (the cheese mold here is not positively recited) and comprising a one-walled perforated plate (11, 12, 14), wherein the one-walled perforated plate is produced by deep-drawing in a form of a perforated sheet having a circumferential, bent rim (¶ 23, “the bottom 12 and the outwardly-angled sides 14 of the pan 11 are formed by deep-drawing an appropriately-sized sheet of metal”), bent in a pressing direction, wherein a plurality of perforations are worked into the perforated sheet (“holes 24 may be formed by making round perforations into the sheet of metal”).
Sudmalis is arguably not able to perform as a press cover for a mould because its handles 18 would interfere with such a use. However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the pan 11 was likely deep-drawn, and had its perforations made (as described in ¶ 23), prior to installing the handles to prevent the handles from interfering with any means or methods of manipulating the pan during its shaping. Therefore, as the pan, during its manufacture, would more than likely achieve a state of being produced without handles before these handles were attached, Sudmalis is effective evidence that it’s likely that a structure matching the claimed structure would have been in existence prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudmalis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Official Notice.
Sudmalis does not disclose that the press cover is made of steel or stainless steel. Instead, Sudmalis only discloses that it is made of metal (¶ 23).
However, the Office takes Official Notice that stainless steel is well-known as a material generally suitable for cooking apparatus like that of Sudmalis, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to select stainless steel as the metal to construct Sudmalis from given its ability to handle heat and food.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4–10 are 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:
As Sudmalis is the only remaining primary reference applicable to the independent claims, and Sudmalis is not directed to a cheese mold press cover, the options available to prove the obviousness of further modifications of it are limited. Each claim indicated as having allowable subject matter seem particularly directed to a cheese mold press cover in such a way that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sudmalis to arrive at the claimed inventions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Laiterie du Parc (FR 2236412 A) discloses a cheese mold with a bent rim, but it is also made of plastic.
Van der Ploeg (FR 2539271 A1) is similar.
Dubbeld (DE 1140012 B) also discloses a cheese mold made with a bent rim, but its material is unclear, and given the structure of its cover, it seems unlikely to be made by deep drawing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights