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 1, 3, 5, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in line 8 before “a handle” insert “and” in order to place the claim in better form.
Regarding claim 3, remove “is attached as fixed and non-rotable about a hinge to said body section proximate said exterior surface” and amend to instead recite “attached to said body section is fixed and non-rotatable about a hinge” in order to place the claim in better grammatical form, and since “proximate said exterior surface” is already recited in amended claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, remove “positioned on said exterior and” since the phrase is redundant.
Regarding claim 8, insert “,” before “wherein”.
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 1-10 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, the limitation “a single receiver formed in at least one end wall” renders the claim indefinite since the recited language is ambiguous as to whether the “at least one end wall” refers to the body section or the handle. By extension, it is unclear if the receiver is formed in the body section or the handle. Examiner notes Applicant’s disclosure shows receiver 38 in end wall 24 of the body. The rejection can be overcome by amending the limitation to clarify the structure of the body such that the “at least one end wall” is not ambiguous. Examiner further notes claim 6 should be taken into consideration when amending claim 1 as suggested.
Claims 2-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tingley (US 2017/0247139 A1) in view of Bush (US 5,584,232).
It is noted that “a surface” as recited by the claim is hereon interpreted to be any surface to which the cover can be demountably coupled, and all recitations of “the surface” are interpreted to refer to the above stated “a surface”. The limitation “proximate said exterior surface” is hereon interpreted in view of the disclosure to mean the handle is coupled to the exterior surface of the body section as shown by figures 2-5. In view of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above, the handle is interpreted to be attached to the exterior surface of the body section with a single receiver formed in at least one end wall of the body section.
Regarding claim 1, Tingley teaches a pizza pan (abstract) comprising a body section having an interior surface and an exterior surface opposite the interior surface, the body section including a rim formed at the confluence of the interior surface and the exterior surface, said body section forming a baking volume configured to receive a dough (figures 1-4; paragraph 16). The pan is capable of being used as a baking cover by inverting the pan over the food to be baked. The rim is capable of demountably coupling with a surface (e.g., with another pan, plate, or other cooking utensil). The pan is not limited in shape, and can include squares and rectangles (paragraph 17). Therefore, the reference teaches an embodiment in which the body section comprises “at least one end wall”.
Tingley does not teach a handle coupled to the exterior of the body section and attached with a single receiver formed in at least one end wall said body section.
Bush teaches an oven body 22 made of metal (figure 1; column 2 lines 54-59), where the body comprises a handle 26 attached to an external surface of the body with a temporary screw 48 such that the handle is removable (figure 2; column 3 lines 5-8; claim 2). The screw is shown to extend through the wall of body 22, therefore the wall is construed to have “a single receiver” formed therein to receive said screw.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the pan of Tingley to include a handle coupled to the exterior of the body section and attached with a single receiver formed in at least one end wall of said body section since the reference does not limit modifications (paragraph 15) and teaches a square or rectangular shape of the body, since the prior art recognizes the structure for attaching handles to cookware, and therefore to similarly facilitate handling and manipulation of the pan, and to allow the handle to be detached from the body to minimize space occupied during transport and storage.
Regarding claim 2, the pan of Tingley is capable of being configured to be an enclosed volume responsive to said rim demountably coupling with said surface e.g., by inverting the pan onto another pan as stated for claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Bush teaches the handle is attached by the thumbscrew 48 as stated for claim 1. The handle is shown to be fixed by the thumbscrew and non-rotatable about a hinge since the structure does not include a hinge (figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “to allow a baker to hold the cover in a location that allows for placement of the cover over the bread dough without pulling out the surface from an oven” is directed to an intended use of the claimed product. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the handle 26 of Bush as applied to claim 1 would have been capable of performing the intended use.
Regarding claims 6-7, Tingley teaches the pan can be shaped as a square or rectangle as stated for claim 1. Therefore, the reference teaches an embodiment in which the body comprises opposing end walls and side walls.
Regarding claims 8-9, Tingley teaches the pan is manufactured from aluminum alloy (paragraph 17) and formed into a shape to accommodate the bread dough as stated for claim 1. The aluminum alloy necessarily comprises a thermal mass material with a thermal conductivity and infrared absorptivity and emissivity.
Regarding claim 10, Tingley teaches the aluminum alloy pan is anodized and darkened, which facilitates rapid heat transfer in a pizza oven (paragraph 17). The anodizing treatment would have necessarily achieved some modification of IR absorptivity and emissivity, particularly due to the material being darkened.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tingley in view of Bush as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moore (US 2015/0201802 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination applied to claim 1 does not teach the handle is configured as thermally non-conductive.
Moore teaches a baking pan insert (abstract) comprising a handle 514, where the handle comprises a grip 518 made of an insulating material such as heat-tolerant silicone, the material facilitating a better grip by way of a higher coefficient of friction (figure 5; paragraph 35). Thus, the handle 514 comprising grip 518 is construed to be “configured as thermally non-conductive”.
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the pan of Tingley to include a heat-resistant silicone grip on the handle in since the prior art recognizes such a feature for baking insert handles, in order to facilitate gripping during handling, and to ensure the handle does not become hot during use, thereby preventing user injury.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered, but the amendments to the claims necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Claim 1 is no longer rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Preston and Beam. Said references are no longer relied upon. The claim is now rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Tingley in view of Bush.
Likewise, Olver, Allen, and Levinson are no longer relied upon as necessitated by the new grounds of rejection. Claim 4 is now rejected under 35 USC 103 further in view of Moore.
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 BRYAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0338. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571)-270-3475. 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.
/BRYAN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1792