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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered as follows.
The Examiner appreciates Applicant’s attention to the 35 USC §112(a) rejection with respect to the silicone having a melting point up to 450 degrees Fahrenheit. This rejection has been withdrawn.
However, new issues have arisen which require new grounds of rejection presented below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim amendments should follow the guidelines of MPEP §714. That is proper underlining of additions, line-through of deletions, etc..
To give some examples of missing formalities within the submission. “Amendment” should be (presently amended). All changes should be recorded in this manner.
Claims should be presented as a single sentence and end with a period. That is claims should not contain multiple periods.
The word “regarding” at the end of claim 1 appears to be a typographical error.
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 1 and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1,
-“used essentially of/only used of this material” is ambiguous in several ways. Firstly, the verb “used” is ambiguous in this context. What does it mean to be “used of” a material. “essentially of/only of” comprises a narrow limitation “only of” in combination with a broader limitation “essentially of” as such it is unclear what the scope of the claim requires (the narrower or the broader limitation). “this material” is also ambiguous as it is unclear as to what material is being referred to.
-“to be heated to 425 degrees during cooking” is an improper inclusion of a method step in a product claim. The positively recited method steps “to be heated” and “during cooking” introduce a temporal process requirement on the claim “during cooking” and as such introduce ambiguity as to the statutory class of the claim.
For the purposes of examination the Examiner will take “use essentially of” silicone as meaning consisting essentially of silicone. The method limitations will be treated as intended use and taken to require that the material is capable of such a use.
Regarding claim 2
-“further comprises” renders the claim ambiguous as claim 2 as written is an independent claim with no prior recitations.
The Examiner suspects that Applicant intended to have claim 2 depend off claim 1 but it is noted that the Examiner is not able to interpret the claim in a way that is contrary to the literal meaning of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 7490732 to Wasserman et al.
Regarding claim 1, Wasserman teaches Invention is a cooking apparatus designed as an hour-glass shaped cylinder (620) comprised of silicone material (Col. 8, ll. 26-40). The cylinder configured to be used essentially of/only used of this material (essentially of, see Col. 8, ll. 26-40). This silicone cylinder to be heated to 425 degrees during cooking (intended use, see MPEP §2114, however as established extensively in the prior OA, the 425 degree limit is also an inherent material property of silicone) to provide additional surface contact area for food heating (intended use, if the silicone handle were added to a food such as uncooked dough it would be capable of providing extra surface area).
Regarding claim 2, Wasserman teaches an hour-glass shaped cylinder (620) for food contact (intended use, see MPEP §2114) and a handle for retrieving the cylinder (the through holes may be considered a handle).
The Examiner understands that the product used is quite different in intended function than Applicant’s invention. However, it is noted that Applicant has claimed a product claim. Product claims must be differentiated over the prior art in terms of structural features (see MPEP §2114).
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to call the Examiner with any questions about this Office Action. The Examiner can be reached at 571-272-1051.
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 WOODY A LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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" Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/WOODY A LEE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761