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 .
Status
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application papers filed on 19 October 2022.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 19 October 2022 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has/have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as follows:
(A) The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 48.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 12, 13 and 18 is/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.
(A) Regarding Claim(s) 12, 13 and 18:
Claim(s) 12, 13 and 18 recite(s): positioning the user for inserting the first terminus into the depression and for squeezing and releasing the bulb for suctioning drippings into the tube. The most relevant portion(s) of the specification and/or drawings, found by the Office, at page 6, lines 25-28 discloses the same language as the claim. Thus, claim(s) 12, 13 and 15 is/are rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, the claim recites a bend followed by a bulb configured for grasping and then proceeds to recite positioning, squeezing and releasing. As a result, it is unclear if functions or process steps are being claimed. If functions are being claimed, it is furthermore unclear as to which element(s) of the claim is/are providing the respective functions (i.e. the bend or bulb). Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting a bend and/or bulb as claimed to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 0527252 to Stroud (hereinafter “STROUD”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 2459657 to Klein (hereinafter “KLEIN”).
(A) Regarding Claim 1:
STROUD teaches:
A drippings collection assembly comprising:
a rack (C, not lettered in figures, see col. 2, ll. 67-68) configured to be positionable in a pan, such that a grate of the rack is elevated above a bottom of the pan (see Fig. 2);
a tray (B, Figs. 1-3) selectively positionable under the rack, such that a first end of the tray is positioned proximate to one of opposed ends of the rack and a second end of the tray is positioned on the pan beneath the other of the opposed ends of the rack (wherein the ends of the tray are considered as the part of the tray with handles).
NOTE ON CLAIM INTERPREATION:
The claim recites: “configured to be positionable,” “selectively positionable.” Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device meets the structural limitations of the claimed device and is capable of performing the recited function then the prior art device necessarily possesses the functionality claimed. In this case, the rack and tray of STROUD meets the structural limitations of the claimed rack and tray. Thus, the functionally defined limitations claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device (MPEP 2114(I)).
However, the difference between STROUD and the claimed invention is that STROUD does not explicitly teach a depression positioned in the tray adjacent to the second end, wherein the depression is configured for collecting drippings falling from a food item positioned upon the rack.
KLEIN teaches:
An angularly extending tray comprises a channel (36, Figs. 3 and 5) open to a depression (38) positioned in the tray adjacent to the second end (see Fig. 3), wherein the depression is configured for collecting drippings falling from a food item positioned upon the rack (col. 3, ll. 44-49).
NOTE ON CLAIM INTERPREATION:
The claim recites: “configured for collecting.” Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device meets the structural limitations of the claimed device and is capable of performing the recited function then the prior art device necessarily possesses the functionality claimed. In this case, the depression of KLEIN meets the structural limitations of the claimed depression. Thus, the functionally defined limitations claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device (MPEP 2114(I)).
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 tray to include the channel and depression, as taught by KLEIN, in order to direct the drippings to one end of the tray and thereby achieve the predictable result of a single location for accessing drippings, or juices, for basting (KLEIN col. 3, ll. 55-57).
(B) Regarding Claim 14:
STROUD teaches:
A drippings collection system comprising:
a pan (A, Figs. 1-3);
a rack (C, not lettered in figures, see col. 2, ll. 67-68) positioned in the pan, such that a grate of the rack is elevated above a bottom of the pan (see Fig. 2);
a food item positioned upon the rack (col. 2, ll. 70-73: meat);
a tray (B, Figs. 1-3) positioned under the rack, such that a first end of the tray is positioned proximate to one of opposed ends of the rack and a second end of the tray is positioned on the pan beneath the other of the opposed ends of the rack (wherein the ends of the tray are considered as the part of the tray with handles).
However, the difference between STROUD and the claimed invention is that STROUD does not explicitly teach a depression positioned in the tray adjacent to the second end, wherein the depression is configured for collecting drippings falling from a food item positioned upon the rack.
KLEIN teaches:
A tray comprises a channel (36, Figs. 3 and 5) open to a depression (38) positioned in the tray adjacent to the second end (see Fig. 3), such that drippings are collected from the food item positioned upon the rack (col. 3, ll. 44-49).
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 tray to include the channel and depression, as taught by KLEIN, in order to direct the drippings to one end of the tray and thereby achieve the predictable result of a single location for accessing drippings, or juices, for basting (KLEIN col. 3, ll. 55-57).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified STROUD, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7587973 to Kaliveh et al. (hereinafter “KALIVEH”) and additionally in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20080098904 to Fouse (hereinafter “FOUSE”).
(A) Regarding Claim 2:
Modified STROUD teaches:
a rack (C, not lettered in figures, see col. 2, ll. 67-68), comprises a perimeter ring (i.e. the rack has a continuous outer length formed into the rectangular shape of the rack), a plurality of second bars extending between opposite ends of the perimeter ring (i.e. the bars extending along the major axis of the rectangular shaped rack), and a plurality of legs integral with the perimeter ring (i.e. the bent portions of the perimeter ring at the corners of the rectangular shaped rack), wherein the legs are configured for elevating the grate above the bottom of the pan (A, see Figs. 2-3).
However, the difference between modified STROUD and the claimed invention is that modified STROUD does not explicitly teach the second bars attached to a plurality of first bars extending between opposite sides of the perimeter ring, such that the second bars and the first bars define the grate.
KALIVEH teaches:
A perimeter ring (22, Fig. 4); a plurality of first bars (18) extending between opposite sides of the perimeter ring; a plurality of second bars (18) extending between opposite ends of the perimeter ring and being attached to the plurality of first bars, such that the second bars and the first bars define the grate (col. 3, ll. 3-5).
Thus, both STROUD and KALIVEH teach racks that support a food item above a surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the grate with bars along the major axis of the rack for the grate with bars along both the major and minor axis of the rack, as taught by KALIVEH, to achieve the predictable result of forming a grate to support the food above a surface (KALIVEH col. 2, ll. 60-62: rack 12 with support structure 14 for a roast and col. 3, ll. 3-5: grate). See MPEP 2141(III)).
However, the difference between modified STROUD and the claimed invention is that modified STROUD does not explicitly teach the plurality of legs attached to and extending from the perimeter ring.
FOUSE teaches:
A plurality of legs (not numbered, but shown in Fig. 7 having feet 18a, and see para. 0018) attached to and extending from a perimeter ring (i.e. the continuous length forming the shape of the rack in Fig. 7).
Thus, both STROUD and FOUSE teach racks that support a food item above a surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the integral perimeter legs for the attached perimeter legs with feet, as taught by FOUSE, to achieve the predictable result of forming a rack to support the food above a surface (FOUSE para. 0006: rack supports the turkey to provide drainage in the oven). See MPEP 2141(III)).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified STROUD, as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20100230404 to Sigler (hereinafter “SIGLER”).
(A) Regarding Claim 3:
Modified STROUD teaches:
a plurality of feet (FOUSE, Fig. 7, 18a), each foot being attached to a respective leg distal from the perimeter ring (not numbered in FOUSE Fig. 7).
However, the difference between modified STROUD and the claimed invention is that modified STROUD does not explicitly teach the foot being resiliently compressible, wherein the feet are configured for deterring sliding of the rack within the pan
SIGLER teaches:
A rack (204, Fig. 5) for a cooking appliance (para. 0002) comprises a plurality of feet (504), each foot being attached to a respective leg (502) distal from the perimeter ring (not numbered in Fig. 5), and the foot being resiliently compressible (para. 0050: feet made of rubber or silicone rubber).
NOTE ON CLAIM INTERPREATION:
The claim recites: “configured for deterring sliding.” Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device meets the structural limitations of the claimed device and is capable of performing the recited function then the prior art device necessarily possesses the functionality claimed. In this case, the feet of SIGLER meets the structural limitations of the claimed feet. Thus, the functionally defined limitations claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device (MPEP 2114(I)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the feet from rubber or silicone rubber such that the feet are resiliently compressible, as taught by SIGLER, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified STROUD, as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8381642 to Krent et al. (hereinafter “KRENT”).
(A) Regarding Claim 4:
Modified STROUD teaches:
A rack (STROUD Figs. 1-3) with a perimeter ring defining a grate (KALIVEH col. 3, ll. 3-5).
However, the difference between modified STROUD and the claimed invention is that modified STROUD does not explicitly teach a pair of first rails, each first rail being attached to and extending upwardly from a respective opposite side of the perimeter ring and extending from proximate to the opposite ends of the perimeter ring, wherein the first rails are configured for retaining a food item upon the grate.
KRENT teaches:
A rack comprises a pair of first rails (215 Fig. 2a), each first rail being attached to and extending upwardly from a respective opposite side of the rack (see Fig. 4b) and extending from proximate to the opposite ends of the rack (see Fig. 2a), wherein the first rails are configured for retaining a food item upon the grate (col. 5, ll. 13-16: the rack may have more longitudinal elements to contain smaller objects, e.g. vegetables, suggests the first rails provide for containing larger objects, see col. 1, ll. 43-45: large items include turkeys and roasts).
NOTE ON CLAIM INTERPREATION:
The claim recites: “configured for retaining.” Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device meets the structural limitations of the claimed device and is capable of performing the recited function then the prior art device necessarily possesses the functionality claimed. In this case, the first rails of KRENT meets the structural limitations of the claimed first rails. Thus, the functionally defined limitations claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device (MPEP 2114(I)).
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 rack of STROUD by including first rails, as taught by KRENT, in order to lift the food item from the roasting pan and thereby achieve the predictable result of keeping large food items contained during removal (KRENT col. 5, ll. 13-16: the rack may have more longitudinal elements to contain smaller objects, e.g. vegetables, suggests the first rails provide for containing larger objects, see col. 1, ll. 43-45: large items include turkeys and roasts).
(B) Regarding Claim 5:
Modified STROUD teaches:
Each first rail (215, KRENT Fig. 4b) comprises: a pair of arcuate bars (only one shown in KRENT Fig. 4b), each arcuate bar extending outwardly and upwardly from the rack (205, Fig. 2a) proximate to a respective opposite end of the rack; and a horizontal bar (not separately numbered from first rail 215, Fig. 4a) attached to and extending between the arcuate bars.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified STROUD, as applied to claim 4 above, further in view of U.S. Patent No. 3585922 to Peterson et al. (hereinafter “PETERSON”).
(A) Regarding Claim 6:
Modified STROUD teaches:
A rack (C, not lettered in figures, see col. 2, ll. 67-68) with first rails (215, KRENT Fig. 4b).
However, the difference between modified STROUD and the claimed invention is that modified STROUD does not explicitly teach a pair of handles attached singly to the first rails.
PETERSON teaches:
A pair of first rails (30, 35, Fig. 4) comprises a pair handles (41, 44) singly attached to the first rails.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include handles attached to the first rails, as taught by PETERSON, in order provide additional handle length beyond the handle rod and thereby achieve the predictable result of simplifying the operation of removing the rack from a pan (PETERSON col. 3, ll. 2-4).
(B) Regarding Claim 7:
Modified STROUD teaches:
each handle (PETERSON 41, 44, Fig. 4) comprises a grip bar having opposing termini attached to the first rail (30, 35), the grip bar being positioned substantially equally distant from the opposite ends of the perimeter ring (PETERSON Fig. 2 shows the perimeter ring, wherein opposite ends are located at portions 13 of the perimeter).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified STROUD, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6952991 to Siegel et al. (hereinafter “SIEGEL”).
(A) Regarding Claim 8:
Modified STROUD teaches:
A rack (STROUD, C, not lettered in figures, see col. 2, ll. 67-68) with a tray (STROUD, B), wherein the tray extends angularly from the rack (KLEIN Figs. 3 and 5) to a pan (STROUD Fig. 1, A) in which the rack is positioned.
However, the difference between modified STROUD and the claimed invention is that modified STROUD does not explicitly teach a plurality of fasteners attached to the first end of the tray, the fasteners being selectively attachable to one of the opposed ends of the rack, such that the tray is removably attached to the rack.
SIEGEL teaches:
a plurality of fasteners (42, Fig. 6, only one shown) attached to the first end of the tray (40), the fasteners being selectively attachable to one of the opposed ends of the rack (at 59), such that the tray is removably attached to the rack.
Thus, both STROUD and SIEGEL teach supporting the rack above a surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the rack legs for the fasteners, as taught by SIEGEL, to achieve the predictable result of supporting the rack above a surface (SIEGEL col. 1, ll. 32-36). See MPEP 2141(III)).
(B) Regarding Claim 9:
Modified STROUD teaches:
each fastener comprises a hook (SIEGEL Figs. 7-8, 44).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified STROUD, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of U.S. Patent No. 2411993 to Hobson (hereinafter “HOBSON”).
(A) Regarding Claim 10:
Modified STROUD teaches:
An angularly extending tray comprises a channel (KLEIN 36, Figs. 3 and 5) open to a depression (KLEIN 38) positioned in the tray adjacent to the second end (see KLIEN Fig. 3).
However, the difference between modified STROUD and the claimed invention is that modified STROUD does not explicitly teach the depression extends arcuately from the second end toward the first end, such that the depression is substantially hemispherically shaped.
HOBSON teaches:
A tray (Fig. 2) comprises a depression (25) that extends arcuately from the second end toward the first end, such that the depression is substantially hemispherically shaped, wherein a plurality of channels (26a) extend from a rim of the tray to the depression.
Thus, both modified STROUD and HOBSON teach trays for collecting drippings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the single channel with oblong depression for the plurality of channels and arcuately extending depression, as taught by HOBSON, to achieve the predictable result of collecting the drippings at one end of the tray (HOBSON col. 3, ll. 1-5). See MPEP 2141(III)).
(B) Regarding Claim 11:
Modified STROUD teaches:
a plurality of channels (HOBSON 26a, Fig. 2) positioned in the tray, each channel extending from the depression (HOBSON 25) to a rim of the tray, wherein the channels are configured for directing the drippings to the depression (HOBSON col. 3, ll. 60-68).
NOTE ON CLAIM INTERPREATION:
The claim recites: “configured for directing.” Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device meets the structural limitations of the claimed device and is capable of performing the recited function then the prior art device necessarily possesses the functionality claimed. In this case, the channels of HOBSON meets the structural limitations of the claimed channels. Thus, the functionally defined limitations claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device (MPEP 2114(I)).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified STROUD, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8365778 to Decal (hereinafter “DECAL”).
(A) Regarding Claim 10:
Modified STROUD teaches:
An angularly extending tray comprises a channel (KLEIN 36, Figs. 3 and 5) open to a depression (KLEIN 38) positioned in the tray adjacent to the second end (see KLIEN Fig. 3).
However, the difference between modified STROUD and the claimed invention is that modified STROUD does not explicitly teach a baster as claimed.
DECAL teaches:
a baster (1) comprising:
a tube (2), a segment of the tube (16) adjacent to a first terminus of the tube being tapered, such that the first terminus (4) is circumferentially smaller than a second terminus of the tube (that connects to bulb 5);
a bulb (5), the bulb being resiliently compressible (col. 1, ll. 58-60: made of rubber or a rubbery material such as a thermoplastic elastomer) and selectively attachable to the second terminus of the tube (at open end 6); and
a bend (14) positioned in the tube proximate to the first terminus, wherein the bulb is configured for grasping in a hand of a user (col. 2, ll. 6-9), positioning the user for inserting the first terminus into the depression (col. 2, ll. 6-9) and for squeezing and releasing the bulb for suctioning drippings into the tube (col. 2, ll. 6-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a baster, as taught by DECAL, in order to aspirate liquids from a pan with less overhead clearance than would be required for a straight tube baster and thereby achieve the predictable result of preventing the oven and food from cooling during basting (col. 2, ll. 6-13).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified STROUD, as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of HOBSON.
(A) Regarding Claim 15:
Modified STROUD teaches:
An angularly extending tray comprises a channel (KLEIN 36, Figs. 3 and 5) open to a depression (KLEIN 38) positioned in the tray adjacent to the second end (see KLIEN Fig. 3).
However, the difference between modified STROUD and the claimed invention is that modified STROUD does not explicitly teach the depression extends arcuately from the second end toward the first end, such that the depression is substantially hemispherically shaped.
HOBSON teaches:
A tray (Fig. 2) comprises a depression (25) that extends arcuately from the second end toward the first end, such that the depression is substantially hemispherically shaped, wherein a plurality of channels (26a) extend from a rim of the tray to the depression.
Thus, both modified STROUD and HOBSON teach trays for collecting drippings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the single channel with oblong depression for the plurality of channels and arcuately extending depression, as taught by HOBSON, to achieve the predictable result of collecting the drippings at one end of the tray (HOBSON col. 3, ll. 1-5). See MPEP 2141(III)).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified STROUD, as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of SIEGEL.
(A) Regarding Claim 16:
Modified STROUD teaches:
A rack (STROUD, C, not lettered in figures, see col. 2, ll. 67-68) with a tray (STROUD, B), wherein the tray extends angularly from the rack (KLEIN Figs. 3 and 5) to a pan (STROUD Fig. 1, A) in which the rack is positioned.
However, the difference between modified STROUD and the claimed invention is that modified STROUD does not explicitly teach a plurality of fasteners attached to the first end of the tray, the fasteners being selectively attachable to one of the opposed ends of the rack, such that the tray is removably attached to the rack.
SIEGEL teaches:
a plurality of fasteners (42, Fig. 6, only one shown) attached to the first end of the tray (40), the fasteners being selectively attachable to one of the opposed ends of the rack (at 59), such that the tray is removably attached to the rack, wherein each fastener comprises a hook (SIEGEL Figs. 7-8, 44).
Thus, both STROUD and SIEGEL teach supporting the rack above a surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the rack legs for the fasteners, as taught by SIEGEL, to achieve the predictable result of supporting the rack above a surface (SIEGEL col. 1, ll. 32-36). See MPEP 2141(III)).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified STROUD, as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of KALIVEH, FOUSE, and KRENT.
(A) Regarding Claim 17:
Modified STROUD teaches:
a rack (C, not lettered in figures, see col. 2, ll. 67-68), comprises a perimeter ring (i.e. the rack has a continuous outer length formed into the rectangular shape of the rack), a plurality of second bars extending between opposite ends of the perimeter ring (i.e. the bars extending along the major axis of the rectangular shaped rack), and a plurality of legs integral with the perimeter ring (i.e. the bent portions of the perimeter ring at the corners of the rectangular shaped rack), wherein the legs are configured for elevating the grate above the bottom of the pan (A, see Figs. 2-3).
However, the difference between modified STROUD and the claimed invention is that modified STROUD does not explicitly teach the second bars attached to a plurality of first bars extending between opposite sides of the perimeter ring, such that the second bars and the first bars define the grate.
KALIVEH teaches:
A perimeter ring (22, Fig. 4); a plurality of first bars (18) extending between opposite sides of the perimeter ring; a plurality of second bars (18) extending between opposite ends of the perimeter ring and being attached to the plurality of first bars, such that the second bars and the first bars define the grate (col. 3, ll. 3-5).
Thus, both STROUD and KALIVEH teach racks that support a food item above a surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the grate with bars along the major axis of the rack for the grate with bars along both the major and minor axis of the rack, as taught by KALIVEH, to achieve the predictable result of forming a grate to support the food above a surface (KALIVEH col. 2, ll. 60-62: rack 12 with support structure 14 for a roast and col. 3, ll. 3-5: grate). See MPEP 2141(III)).
However, the difference between modified STROUD and the claimed invention is that modified STROUD does not explicitly teach the plurality of legs attached to and extending from the perimeter ring.
FOUSE teaches:
A plurality of legs (not numbered, but shown in Fig. 7 having feet 18a, and see para. 0018) attached to and extending from a perimeter ring (i.e. the continuous length forming the shape of the rack in Fig. 7).
Thus, both STROUD and FOUSE teach racks that support a food item above a surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the integral perimeter legs for the attached perimeter legs with feet, as taught by FOUSE, to achieve the predictable result of forming a rack to support the food above a surface (FOUSE para. 0006: rack supports the turkey to provide drainage in the oven). See MPEP 2141(III)).
However, the difference between modified STROUD and the claimed invention is that modified STROUD does not explicitly teach a pair of first rails, each first rail being attached to and extending upwardly from a respective opposite side of the perimeter ring and extending from proximate to the opposite ends of the perimeter ring, such that the food item is retained upon the grate.
KRENT teaches:
A rack comprises a pair of first rails (215 Fig. 2a), each first rail being attached to and extending upwardly from a respective opposite side of the rack (see Fig. 4b) and extending from proximate to the opposite ends of the rack (see Fig. 2a), wherein the first rails are configured for retaining a food item upon the grate (col. 5, ll. 13-16: the rack may have more longitudinal elements to contain smaller objects, e.g. vegetables, suggests the first rails provide for containing larger objects, see col. 1, ll. 43-45: large items include turkeys and roasts).
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 rack of STROUD by including first rails, as taught by KRENT, in order to lift the food item from the roasting pan and thereby achieve the predictable result of keeping large food items contained during removal (KRENT col. 5, ll. 13-16: the rack may have more longitudinal elements to contain smaller objects, e.g. vegetables, suggests the first rails provide for containing larger objects, see col. 1, ll. 43-45: large items include turkeys and roasts).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified STROUD, as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of DECAL.
(A) Regarding Claim 18:
Modified STROUD teaches:
An angularly extending tray comprises a channel (KLEIN 36, Figs. 3 and 5) open to a depression (KLEIN 38) positioned in the tray adjacent to the second end (see KLIEN Fig. 3).
However, the difference between modified STROUD and the claimed invention is that modified STROUD does not explicitly teach a baster as claimed.
DECAL teaches:
a baster (1) comprising:
a tube (2), a segment of the tube (16) adjacent to a first terminus of the tube being tapered, such that the first terminus (4) is circumferentially smaller than a second terminus of the tube (that connects to bulb 5);
a bulb (5), the bulb being resiliently compressible (col. 1, ll. 58-60: made of rubber or a rubbery material such as a thermoplastic elastomer) and selectively attachable to the second terminus of the tube (at open end 6); and
a bend (14) positioned in the tube proximate to the first terminus, wherein the bulb is configured for grasping in a hand of a user (col. 2, ll. 6-9), positioning the user for inserting the first terminus into the depression (col. 2, ll. 6-9) and for squeezing and releasing the bulb for suctioning drippings into the tube (col. 2, ll. 6-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a baster, as taught by DECAL, in order to aspirate liquids from a pan with less overhead clearance than would be required for a straight tube baster and thereby achieve the predictable result of preventing the oven and food from cooling during basting (col. 2, ll. 6-13).
Cited Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 0429099 teaches a drip pan with hooks, US 1169168, US 1961391, US 2236992, US 6668708, US 8646381 teach a drip pan hooked to a rack along the sides of the rack, US 1650634, US 5211105 and US 2236992 teach a rack, drip pan, and pan. .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
(A) Regarding Claim(s) 13:
Claim(s) 13 is/are deemed novel and nonobvious over the cited art due to the inclusion of the limitation “a plurality of legs attached to and extending from the perimeter ring…a plurality of fasteners attached to the first end of the tray, the fasteners being selectively attachable to one of the opposed ends of the rack, such that the tray is removably attached to the rack and extends angularly from the rack to a pan in which the rack is positioned, each fastener comprising a hook” which, in combination with the other requirements of the claim(s), is neither taught nor suggested by the cited prior art as a whole, either alone or in combination. Specifically, the cited art teaches racks that have legs (e.g. US 0527252 STROUD) or racks that do not have legs but are supported by fasteners (e.g. US 6952991 to SIGEL). SIEGEL specifically discloses the fastener arrangement replaces rack legs (see col. 1, ll. 48-67). Therefore, in view of the cited art, it would not have been obvious to combine the claimed features of a plurality of legs attached to and extending from the perimeter ring and a plurality of fasteners attached to the first end of the tray as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA M MCCAFFREY whose telephone number is (571)272-3438. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (excluding Wednesday) 10AM - 2 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 Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached on 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.
KAYLA M. MCCAFFREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/Kayla McCaffrey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745