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 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, 3-13 and 18-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Stence and Brignall.
There is disclosed in Walker (figs. 1 and 2) a taco shell maker, comprising: a generally round body folded into a U-shape (fig. 2); and tabs reaching out from the generally round body at peaks of the U-shape and bent back next to the generally round body (fig. 1).
Stence discloses, in a taco shell maker, a solid, non-perforated, generally round body folded into a U-shape.
Brignall discloses, in a taco shell maker, a generally round body 10 which has a diameter greater than the diameter of a tortilla T used with the taco shell maker (fig. 2), and bent tabs 24 which extend along the body, wherein the bent tabs include a flared out bottom edge 34.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the perforated round body of Walker with the non-perforated round body disclosed in Stence, in order to eliminate the step of creating perforations in the body during a manufacture of the taco shell maker.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to operate the taco shell maker of Walker with the teaching of Brignall, and ensure the tortilla used to form the taco has a smaller diameter than the round body, in order to ensure the tabs are capable of engaging the tortilla without damaging the tortilla.
In regards to claim 3, the prior art discloses the claimed invention except for recited round body diameter size. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to construct the body of Walker with the claimed diameter, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. With the standard market taco size being similar in the industry it can be argued that applicant’s claimed size is not unique.
In regards to claims 4-8 and 24 the prior art discloses the claimed invention except for the recited tab lengths and widths. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to construct the tabs of Walker within the claimed size ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The recited tab lengths and widths are suitable for securing a tortilla to the body of the taco shell maker, which would be the desired achievement of the tabs shown in Walker.
In regards to claims 9 and 19, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the tabs of Walker with the teachings of Brignall, and flare the edges, in order to allow easier grasping by a user when removing the tortilla from the round body.
In regards to claims 10-13 and 20-23 the prior art discloses the claimed invention except for the recited fold radius and body interior angle. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to construct the body fold and body interior angle of Walker within the claimed size ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The recited fold and interior angles are suitable for the formulation of a taco shell interior space which can hold a suitable about of food items. Such an interior space would be the desired achievement of the taco shell shown in Walker.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Walker fails to disclose a non-perforated taco shell maker.
The prior art reference to Stence was cited in the rejection to disclose that the use of a non-perforated body is old and well known in the art.
Applicant argues the claimed size ranges are not a result of routine optimization but are a non-obvious solution to a previously unrecognized problem, yielding new and unexpected results.
Applicant goes on to state that the claimed tab dimensions are a critical solution to the warping of a tortilla due to shallow frying.
The prior art references, while silent in the mentioning of exact tab dimensions, each disclose tabs which have varied lengths and widths. Thus, it can be argued that each of the disclosed tab dimensions accomplish a varied result with respect to securing a tortilla during a frying process. The discovery of an optimum dimension of a result effective variable, such as the tab lengths and widths, involves only routine skill in the art. While applicant feels that the claimed tab dimensions are sufficient to hold the tortilla securely against warping forces during shallow frying, those dimensions are result effective variables. One skilled in the art could arrive at the claimed dimensions through trial and error.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 REGINALD L. ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)272-1395. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/REGINALD ALEXANDER/
Examiner
Art Unit 3761
