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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/21/2022 has been considered by the examiner.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because:
While reference number 06 indicates “concentrically extending channel sections”, it also has been used to indicate “water trough” in Paragraph 2, and Fig. 1 & 3.
While reference number 07 indicates “radial extending channel sections”, it also has been used to indicate “water trough” in Paragraph 2 and Fig. 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “laying opposite it” should read “lying opposite it”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 1, 2, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (US 20210274608), in view of Harris (US 20110155619), and further in view of Wittels (US 3759726).
Regarding Claim 1, Wright discloses:Low-pressure steam cooker (1, cooking device; Fig. 1) comprising:
a base plate (4, fryer plate; Fig. 5) having a base surface (lower surface of the base plate; Annotated Fig. 5B) and a cooking product surface (upper surface of the base plate; Annotated Fig. 5B) laying opposite it (Annotated Fig. 5B), wherein the cooking product surface has a hood bearing surface (20, locating groove; Fig. 10C) having a circumferential, raised retaining edge (edge outside the locating groove; Annotated Fig. 5B; the examiner interprets the edge outside the locating groove, which is raised compared to the locating groove, as raised retaining edge), and wherein the cooking product surface has at least one water trough for holding water (22, fat drain trench; Fig. 5B);
a low-pressure hood (6, domed cover; Fig. 1) having a dish-shaped hood volume (volume under the domed cover; Annotated Fig. 4A) and a mounting rim (edge of the domed cover; Annotated Fig. 10C), the contour of which is shaped complementary to the contour of the retaining edge of the base plate, so that the mounting rim is enclosed by the retaining edge when the mounting rim is seated on the hood bearing surface (Fig. 10C);
and wherein the surfaces of the mounting rim and the hood bearing surface facing each other are formed in such a way that a steam outlet gap remains between them, at least in sections (Annotated Fig. 10C).
PNG
media_image1.png
384
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4A of Wright, annotated
PNG
media_image2.png
433
1046
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5A and 5B of Wright, annotated
PNG
media_image3.png
497
834
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 10C of Wright, annotated
Regarding Claim 1, Wright does not explicitly teach non-glazed ceramic material forming the base plate and the low-pressure hood.
However, Harris (US 20110155619) discloses a non-glazed ceramic material (Paragraph 4 teaches an unglazed stoneware baking dish as an example of ceramic cookware having heat retention properties and the porosity of the stoneware itself. The examiner interprets the term, “non-glazed ceramic material” to refer to the absence of a surface glaze layer on the ceramic base plate and the hood, but not to be applied to the ceramic material itself, under the broadest reasonable interpretation.)
Wright and Harris are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of cooking utensils. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the ceramic cookware materials of Harris into the frying plate and the domed cover of Wright, which is a predictable use of a known material of Harris in the Wright’s cooking device, in order to achieve the known benefits of thermal stability and heat retention properties (Harris, Paragraph 4).
Regarding Claim 1, Wright in view of Harris does not explicitly teach the ceramic raw material of which was admixed with granite meal.
However, Wittels (US 3759726) teaches the ceramic raw material (kaolin; Col. 2, Ln. 39; Wittels teaches “kaolin of the nature”. As it is known that kaolin is a standard material used in ceramic bodies, the examiner interprets kaolin as ceramic raw material) of which was admixed (Examples teach compositions of mixtures containing kaolin and granite) with granite meal (granite particles; Col. 4, Ln. 66-69; Wittels teaches, “The granite particles utilized for the process are preferably obtained from the pulverized granite waste to be found in any granite quarry.” As the dictionary definition of meal is “a product resembling seed meal especially in particle size or texture”, the examiner interprets granite particle as granite meal.);
Wright, Harris and Wittels are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both address the ceramic material systems for necessary properties including heat resistance and stability. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the ceramic material taught by Wright in view of Harris with the Wittels’s ceramic material admixed with granite particles, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of providing thermal stability, as well as reducing moisture absorption provided by such ceramic compositions and thus improve cooking.
Regarding Claim 1, Wright, Harris and Wittels teaches the invention as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach the water trough has a water absorption volume in the range of 1% to 2% of the hood volume.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see Fig. 4A of Wright where the fat drain trench has a certain water absorption volume), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa).
In this case, Wright teaches certain water absorption volume of the trench to the housing, and having a specific volume range is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the size of said trough is recognized as a result-effective variable which is the result of a routine experimentation. Varying the size of the trough to control the amount of water in order to ensure adequate steam generation and retention is known in the art.
Regarding Claim 2, Wright in view of Harris and Wittels discloses Low-pressure steam cooker according to claim 1, where the base plate (4, fryer plate; Fig. 5; Wright) and its retaining edge (edge outside the locating groove; Annotated Fig. 5B; Wright) as well as the mounting rim of the low-pressure hood each have a circular outer contour (Fig. 1; Wright), wherein the outer diameter of the mounting rim is slightly smaller than the inner diameter of the retaining edge (Annotated Fig. 10C; Wright).
Therefore, Claim 2 is obvious over Wright, Harris and Wittels.
Regarding Claim 8, Wright in combination with Harris and Wittels discloses base plate (4, fryer plate; Fig. 5; Wright) and low-pressure hood (6, domed cover; Fig. 1; Wright) consist of a ceramic material (Paragraph 4; Harris). Specifically, Wittels teaches a waterproof ceramic material (In Ln. 65-69 of Col. 1, Wittels teaches it is known that a ceramic body can be produced by firing pulverized granite at a high temperature for prolonged periods, resulting in a very dense ceramic body. This is a well-known technique to make non-glazed ceramics non-porous and waterproof on their own).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the ceramic material of Harris, incorporated into the Wright’s cooking device, with the granite-admixed ceramic of Wittels, which is a predictable use of a known material of Wittels for another taught by Harris in an analogous environment, in order to achieve the known benefits of waterproof characteristics provided by such ceramic compositions.
Regarding Claim 9, Wright in view of Harris and Wittels teaches ceramic material (Harris, Paragraph 4) contains microwave-absorbing components, in particular dark micaceous minerals (mica; Col 4, Ln. 25; Wittels teaches the granite contains 18% mica. It is well known that most granite waste inherently includes biotite (dark mica), and it is microwave absorbent due to its high dielectric loss factor).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the ceramic material of Harris, incorporated into the Wright’s cooking device, with the granite-admixed ceramic of Wittels, which is a predictable use of a known material of Wittels for another taught by Harris in an analogous environment, in order to achieve the known benefits of enhanced thermal performance including microwave absorbing properties.
Regarding Claim 10, Wright in view of Harris and Wittels teaches titanium oxide (Col. 4, Ln. 66-69; Wittels teaches granite particles are obtained from pulverized granite waste in Ln. 66-69 of Col. 4. It is well known that titanium oxide is a natural component of pulverized granite powder) was admixed (Col.3, Ln. 49; Wittels) to the ceramic raw material (kaolin; Col.2, Ln. 39; Wittels) during the manufacture of the base plate (4, fryer plate; Fig. 5; Wright) and the low-pressure hood (6, domed cover; Fig. 1; Wright).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the material for the fryer plate and the domed cover of the Wright’s cooking device, with the granite-admixed ceramic of Wittels, in order to achieve the known benefits of improved mechanical stability including wear resistance (Wittels; Col. 2, Ln. 33-34) at the mating surfaces.
Claim 3, which is a dependent claim of Claim 1, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (US 20210274608), in view of Harris (US 20110155619) and Wittels (US 3759726), and further in view of Detwiler (US 1733450).
Regarding Claim 3, Wright in view of Harris and Wittels discloses Low-pressure steam cooker according to claim 1, wherein the water trough (22, fat drain trench; Fig. 5B; Wright) in the cooking product surface (upper surface of the base plate; Annotated Fig. 5B; Wright).
Wright in view of Harris and Wittels does not explicitly teach the water trough is formed by a communicating channel system.
However, Detwiler teaches the water trough is formed by a communicating channel system (P. 2, Ln. 52; Claim 3 teaches, “one of said surfaces having grooves or channels extending in directions from the center towards the periphery thereof, and a circumferential trough with which said channels communicate.”)
Wright, Harris, Wittels and Detwiler are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of cooking utensils. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the channel arrangement of Detwiler into the fat drain trench of Wright, which would have been a predictable application of a known fluid management approach in order to achieve the uniform fluid distribution on the upper surface of the base plate.
Claim 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (US 20210274608), in view of Harris (US 20110155619), Wittels (US 3759726) and Detwiler (US 1733450), and further in view of Gorsuch et al. (US 4676151), hereinafter Gorsuch.
Regarding Claim 4, as discussed in the rejection of Claim 3, Wright in combination with Harris, Wittels and Detwiler discloses the channel system of the water trough.
While Wright in view of Harris, Wittels and Detwiler teaches a plurality of radial extending channel sections (12, groove or channel; Fig. 1; Detwiler), they do not explicitly teach the channel system of the water trough comprises a plurality of concentrically extending channel sections.
PNG
media_image4.png
490
790
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Detwiler, annotated
However, Gorsuch teaches the channel system of the water trough comprises a plurality of concentrically extending channel sections (128, grooves; Fig. 8) (Paragraph 22 teaches the pattern of grooves comprises a plurality of concentric circles)
Wright, Harris, Wittels, Detwiler and Gorsuch are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of cooking utensils. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the concentric channel geometry of Gorsuch into the radial channel geometry of Detwiler, thereby providing a channel system having both concentric and radial sections, which would have been a predictable application of a known fluid management approach in cookware in order to achieve the known benefit of uniform cooking.
PNG
media_image5.png
380
662
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 of Gorsuch, annotated
Regarding Claim 5, Wright in combination with Harris, Wittels, Detwiler and Gorsuch discloses the concentrically extending channel sections (128, groove; Fig. 8 of Gorsuch) and the radially extending channel sections (12, groove or channel; Fig. 1; Detwiler) extend in a lower plane (bottom plane; Annotated Fig. 3 of Detwiler), the cooking product surface (rib surface; Annotated Fig. 3 of Detwiler) extends in a middle plane (mid plane; Annotated Fig. 3 of Detwiler) and the upper edge of the retaining edge (wall surface; Annotated Fig. 3 of Detwiler) extends in an upper plane (top plane; Annotated Fig. 3 of Detwiler), wherein these three planes extend parallel to each other and wherein the middle plane (mid plane) is positioned closer to the lower (bottom plane) than to the upper plane (top plane).
Therefore, Claim 5 is obvious over Wright in view of Harris, Wittels, Detwiler and Gorsuch, in order to achieve well known benefits of improved fluid management including retention of adequate amount of water, as well as overflow control.
PNG
media_image6.png
332
1052
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Detwiler, annotated
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (US 20210274608), in view of Harris (US 20110155619) and Wittels (US 3759726), and further in view of Bewlay et al. (US 9802243), hereinafter Bewlay.
Regarding Claim 6, Wright in combination with Harris and Wittels discloses mounting rim (Annotated Fig. 10C; Wright) and the hood bearing surface (20, locating groove; Fig. 10C; Wright).
Wright, Harris and Wittels does not explicitly disclose the mounting rim and the hood bearing surface (04) have a surface roughness with an average roughness Ra > 100 µm.
However, Bewlay teaches a surface roughness with an average roughness Ra > 100 µm (Paragraph 92 teaches, “the surface-finishing process through grinding and honing yields surfaces with Ra in a range of 0.1 mm to 1.6 mm” which is greater than 100 µm).
Wright in view of Harris and Wittels, and Bewlay are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both address the same type of engineering problem as to how to design contacting surfaces with appropriate roughness. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the mounting rim and hood bearing surfaces of the cooker of Wright, Harris and Wittels to have a surface roughness taught by Bewlay, in order to have the known benefits of appropriate durability and slippage at the mating surfaces due to friction, as Bewlay explicitly teaches that surface roughness Ra is a design parameter selected according to the desired function of the contacting components and the surface finishing process through grinding and honing would yield surfaces with Ra in range of 0.1 mm to 1.6 mm (Bewlay, Paragraph 92).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (US 20210274608), in view of Harris (US 20110155619) and Wittels (US 3759726), and further in view of Abbas (US 20120074141).
Regarding Claim 7, Wright in combination with Harris and Wittels teaches the low-pressure hood (6, domed cover; Fig. 1; Wright), but does not explicitly disclose it has an outwardly directed support surface on its upper side opposite the mounting rim.
However, Abbas teaches an outwardly directed support surface (Annotated Fig. 2 shows the surface of knob 125 which is flat and circular) on its upper side opposite the mounting rim (110, inner peripheral wall; Fig. 2; Paragraph 29).
Wright, Harris, Wittels and Abbas are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of cooking utensils. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the domed cover taught by Wright to have the knob having the flat and circular base surface taught by Abbas, which would have been a predictable application of a known structural feature from an analogous cooking vessel reference in order to achieve the same benefits of providing with a support system, and being employed as a serving dish by inverting the lid (Abbas, Paragraph 29 & 30).
PNG
media_image7.png
344
792
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Abbas, annotated
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761