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 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “beyond the annular base a distance” should be changed to “beyond the annular base at a distance”.
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 21-25 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 21 recites “the flexible skirt extends in a direction radially outward from the annular base and rests loosely on the stove top”. However, the term “rests loosely” in claim 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rests loosely” 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.
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.
Claims 16-17, 20-22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 7,694,671) in view of Rakhi (YouTube: How to protect your burner from stains).
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses “an antifouling collar system” (fig.4) comprising:
“a continuous side wall” (annotated fig.4) extending between “an upper end” (annotated fig.4) and “a lower end” (annotated fig.4), “the side wall tapering radially outward in a direction from the upper end toward the lower end such that the lower end defines a greater diameter than the upper end” (fig.4 shows the side wall tapering radially outward in a direction from the upper end toward the lower end such that the lower end defines a greater diameter than the upper end);
“an annular upper lip extending circumferentially around the upper end of the side wall and defining an upper opening” (annotated fig.4 shows an annular upper lip extending circumferentially around the upper end of the side wall and defining an upper opening);
“an annular base” (31 and 34 pointed at the annular base) extending circumferentially around and radially outward from “the lower end of the side wall” (annotated fig.4), wherein “the lower end of the side wall defines a lower opening” (annotated fig.4 shows the lower end of sidewall defines the lower opening); and
Lee is silent regarding a flexible skirt comprising a sheet of material having a central opening, the flexible skirt being wrapped around the annular lip such that an edge of the central opening engages the upper lip while leaving the upper opening unobstructed, the flexible skirt being supported by the upper lip and extending downwardly along an exterior surface of the side wall, extending across the annular base, and extending radially outward and beyond the annular base a distance such that when the antifouling collar is disposed on a stovetop the skirt is configured to rest on and cover a surrounding stovetop surface.
Rakhi teaches “a flexible skirt” (aluminum foil which is well known and commercial available at Costco) comprising “a sheet of material having a central opening” (the cavity region forms the central opening), “the flexible skirt” (aluminum foil) being wrapped around “the annular lip” (the upper edge portion of the bowl shape object (an antifouling collar system) has the annular lip) such that “an edge of the central opening engages the upper lip while leaving the upper opening unobstructed” (the cavity has an edge of opening engages the upper lip), “the flexible skirt being supported by the upper lip and extending downwardly along an exterior surface of the side wall” (at least a portion of flexible skirt being supported by the upper lip and extending downwardly along at least a portion of an exterior surface of the sidewall (see video at 1:55 shows a portion of aluminum extend at the exterior sidewall region). Examiner noted that the flexible skirt coverage on an antifouling collar system (bowl shape object) depends on how user want to wrap around the collar system (hence, user can use a longer length of aluminum foil to cover more area of the collar system for purpose of keep collar system from dust or grease)), “extending across the annular base, and extending radially outward and beyond the annular base a distance such that when the antifouling collar is disposed on a stovetop the skirt is configured to rest on and cover a surrounding stovetop surface” (the collar system (i.e., the bowl shape object) extending across the annular base, and extending radially outward and beyond the annular base a distance (see video at 2:00) such that when the antifouling collar is disposed on a stovetop the skirt is configured to rest on and cover a surrounding stovetop surface (see video at 2:31). Examiner noted that stovetop is not part of the collar system so that it is considered as functional language). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Lee with Rakhi, by adding Rakhi’s aluminum foil to prevent grease and dust for cooking purpose.
Regarding claim 17, modified Lee discloses “the annular upper lip” (Rakhi, See annotated below) has “a greater thickness than the continuous side wall” (Rakhi, the thickness of sidewall).
Regarding claim 20, modified Lee discloses “the continuous side wall includes a plurality of apertures extending therethrough” (Lee, 33).
Regarding claim 21, Lee discloses “a stove top antifouling system” (fig.1) comprising:
“a stove top including a burner” (fig.1 shows a stove top including a burner);
“an antifouling collar” (30) positioned on “the stove top around the burner” (fig.1 shows the stovetop (i.e., the surface) around burner 50), the antifouling collar comprising:
“an antifouling collar system” (fig.4) comprising:
“a continuous side wall” (annotated fig.4) extending between “an upper end” (annotated fig.4) and “a lower end” (annotated fig.4), “the side wall tapering radially outward in a direction from the upper end toward the lower end such that the lower end defines a greater diameter than the upper end” (fig.4 shows the side wall tapering radially outward in a direction from the upper end toward the lower end such that the lower end defines a greater diameter than the upper end);
“an annular upper lip extending circumferentially around the upper end of the side wall and defining an upper opening” (annotated fig.4 shows an annular upper lip extending circumferentially around the upper end of the side wall and defining an upper opening);
“an annular base” (31 and 34 pointed at the annular base) extending circumferentially around and radially outward from “the lower end of the side wall” (annotated fig.4), wherein “the lower end of the side wall defines a lower opening” (annotated fig.4 shows the lower end of sidewall defines the lower opening); and
Lee is silent regarding a flexible skirt comprising a sheet of material having a central opening, the flexible skirt being wrapped around the annular lip such that an edge of the central opening engages the upper lip while leaving the upper opening unobstructed, the flexible skirt being supported by the upper lip and extending downwardly along an exterior surface of the side wall, extending across the annular base, and extending radially outward and beyond the annular base a distance such that when the antifouling collar is disposed on a stovetop the skirt is configured to rest on and cover a surrounding stovetop surface.
Rakhi teaches “a flexible skirt” (aluminum foil which is well known and commercial available) comprising “a sheet of material having a central opening” (the cavity region forms the central opening), “the flexible skirt” (aluminum foil) being wrapped around “the annular lip” (the upper edge portion of the bowl shape object (an antifouling collar system) has the annular lip) such that “an edge of the central opening engages the upper lip while leaving the upper opening unobstructed” (the cavity has an edge of opening engages the upper lip), “the flexible skirt being supported by the upper lip and extending downwardly along an exterior surface of the side wall” (at least a portion of flexible skirt being supported by the upper lip and extending downwardly along at least a portion of an exterior surface of the sidewall (see video at 1:55 shows a portion of aluminum extend at the exterior sidewall region). Examiner noted that the flexible skirt coverage on an antifouling collar system (bowl shape object) depends on how user want to wrap around the collar system (hence, user can use a longer length of aluminum foil to cover more area of the collar system for purpose of keep collar system from dust or grease). Examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art to wrap aluminum foil around cooking components to manage grease is a common, well-known practice for easier cleanup and the covering around cooking components with aluminum foil is a user-dependent technique (hence, partially cover or fully cover around the cooking component). MPEP 2143, item I, (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.), “extending across the annular base, and extending radially outward and beyond the annular base a distance such that when the antifouling collar is disposed on a stovetop the skirt is configured to rest on and cover a surrounding stovetop surface” (the collar system (i.e., the bowl shape object) extending across the annular base, and extending radially outward and beyond the annular base a distance (see video at 2:00) such that when the antifouling collar is disposed on a stovetop the skirt is configured to rest on and cover a surrounding stovetop surface (see video at 2:31). Examiner noted that stovetop is not part of the collar system so that it is considered as functional language). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Lee with Rakhi, by adding Rakhi’s aluminum foil to prevent grease and dust for cooking purpose.
The combination of Lee and Rakhi teaches “the annular base rests on the stove top” (Lee, 31 and 34 pointed at the annular base) with “the continuous side wall” (Lee, 35) encircling “the burner” (Lee, fig.1 shows a stove top including a burner 50) such that “the burner” (Lee, 50) is positioned within “the lower opening defined by the side wall” (Lee, 35 forms a lower opening at the lower portion of the side wall); and wherein “the flexible skirt extends in a direction radially outward from the annular base” (Rakhi, flexible skirt extending radially outward and beyond the annular base) and “rests loosely on the stove top circumferentially around the antifouling collar to form a protective covering or a surrounding area of the stove top” (Rakhi, flexible skirt rests loosely on the stove top circumferentially around the antifouling collar to form a protective covering). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Lee with Rakhi, by adding Rakhi’s aluminum foil to prevent grease and dust for cooking purpose.
Regarding claim 22, modified Lee discloses “the annular upper lip” (Rakhi, See annotated below) has “a greater thickness than the continuous side wall” (Rakhi, the thickness of sidewall).
Regarding claim 25, modified Lee discloses “the continuous side wall includes a plurality of apertures extending therethrough” (Lee, 33).
Claims 18-19 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 7,694,671) in view of Rakhi (YouTube: How to protect your burner from stains) as applied in claims 16-17, 20-22 and 25 above, and further in view of Sun (US 10203118).
Regarding claims 18 and 23, modified Lee discloses the collar is formed of a material.
Modified Lee is silent regarding the material of the collar is formed of a conductive metal.
Sun teaches “the collar is formed of a conductive metal” (col.14 at lines 46-50, i.e., 100 including the inner hollow shell 102 and outer square wall 130 is preferably made of durable metals and metal alloys including the sheeted iron and steel). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Lee with Sun, by modifying Lee’s material according to Sun’s material, to provide durable and heat resistance and structural stability for stovetop.
Regarding claims 19 and 24, modified Lee discloses “the conductive metal comprises aluminum or iron” (Sun, col.14 at lines 46-50, i.e., 100 including the inner hollow shell 102 and outer square wall 130 is preferably made of durable metals and metal alloys including the sheeted iron and steel).
PNG
media_image1.png
1110
1100
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
904
1184
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remark has been considered. The amendment to claims overcome prior rejections. However, examiner has provided different interpretation in current rejection.
With respect to the argument that none of the cited reference teach or suggest an annular base extending circumferentially around and radially outward from the lower end of a tapered sidewall, examiner respectfully disagrees because Rakhi teaches a conventional aluminum foil that can be used to wrap around the annular base extend radially upward and outward from the lower end of the sidewall. Examiner noted that the coverage of aluminum foil on a collar is merely depends on user preference. In this case, at least a portion of sidewall is covered by the aluminum foil (Rakhi) and wrapping aluminum foil around grate components to manage grease is a common, well-known practice for easier cleanup. Examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art to wrap aluminum foil around cooking components to manage grease is a common, well-known practice for easier cleanup and the covering around cooking component with aluminum foil is a user-dependent technique (hence, partially cover or fully cover of a cooking component). MPEP 2143, item I, (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Conclusion
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 JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
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 at (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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761