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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to the purported merits, i.e. “resist deformation during baking”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “Baking assist apparatus” in line 1 should be changed to “A baking assist apparatus”
Claim 2 recites “wherein band” in line 2 should be changed to “wherein said band”
Claims 2-15 recites “Baking assist apparatus” in line 1 should be changed to “The baking assist apparatus”
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 1-15 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.
It is not definite what the scopes, elements and claimed subject matter of claims 1-15 are. Claims 1-15 are directed to a bakery assist apparatus; however, the claims do not clearly and definitely recite what the bakery assist apparatus is. It is not definite whether the recitations related to the pie (e.g., crust, dough) and recitations related to the pie pan are part of the claimed bakery assist apparatus or directed to intended use and/or the material or article(s) worked upon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ferriere (FR 2863145) (new cited).
Regarding claim 1, Ferriere discloses a pastry pan base baking accessory comprises solid flexible ring to hold pastry against inner surface of molding ring on baking sheet having a baking assist apparatus (1) for use in the baking of an unbaked pie crust (5) having a malleable dough base (5.1) and a malleable peripheral dough wall (5.2) extending transversely therefrom formed in and overlaying a pie pan (2) having a rigid base (1’) and a rigid periphery wall extending transversely therefrom, the baking assist apparatus (10) comprising: a passive resistance band (10) formed of a continuous, thin-walled, flexible, elongate web element (via 11) formed of a heat resistant material having mutually parallel inward-facing (12) and outward-facing (11) surfaces separate by a predetermined web thickness (via 14), the surfaces terminating at first and second mutually parallel edges (13 and 14) defining a web height (Fig. 1, “h”) therebetween, wherein the dough wall (5.2) has an outward-facing surface and an inward-facing surface, and the outward-facing surface (11) of the web element is configured for positioning against the inward-facing surface of the dough wall of the pie crust, wherein the web element (via 11) is configured to impart to the dough wall (5.2) a manually applied compressive force causing compression thereof against the rigid peripheral wall of the pie pan (via 2’) such that the dough wall adopts the shape of the rigid peripheral wall and so as to adopt a selected thickness, and wherein at least one of the edges (13) of the web element is configured for impressing into a surface of the unbaked pie crust juxtaposed to the dough wall so as to assist in anchoring the web element in the compression position, thereby to fixate the pie crust dough wall portion and to resist deformation thereof during baking (Fig. 1-6).
Regarding claim 2, Ferriere discloses the rigid peripheral wall of the pie pan (2’) has a predetermined closed, geometric shape, and wherein the band (10) is constructed so as to be deployable within and parallel to the rigid peripheral so as to be spaced therefrom by a predetermined uniform spacing S at all locations therealong (Fig. 3-6).
Regarding claim 3, Ferriere discloses the band (10) has a first, total length along its periphery and the rigid side wall of the pan (2) has an interior face having a second, total length therealong, wherein the first total length is less than the second total length such that when the band is fully deployed within the pan, the band (10) defines the spacing S from the rigid sidewall, the spacing equals a predetermined pie crust wall thickness (Fig. 1-6).
Regarding claim 4, Ferriere discloses the rigid wall of the pan (2) terminates in a peripheral rim at a predetermined height above the base of the pan, and the web (via 11) has a height of magnitude that is at least the difference between the predetermined height of the peripheral rim and the minimum desired thickness of the malleable dough base (5.1) (Fig. 1-6).
Regarding claim 5, Ferriere discloses the band (10) has an inward-facing surface (12), and the baking assist apparatus also includes a band support element (20) which comprises a disc (disc 21) whose periphery is configured to fit within the band (10) when fully deployed, and to assist the band in resisting inward deformation forces during baking (Fig. 1-6; Abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Ferriere discloses the band support element (20) has a downward-facing surface (downward-facing surface of disc 21) and is configured to fit within the band (10) so as to overlie the dough base (5), thereby to resist its tendency to puff up during baking (Fig. 1-6; Abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Ferriere discloses the band support element (20) is formed with a plurality of vents (22) extending therethrough the thickness thereof, configured to release gas pressure accumulating within the dough base (5.1) during baking (Fig. 3-6).
Regarding claim 12, Ferriere discloses the first and second edges 13, 14) of the web element are equal length (Fig. 1-6).
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.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferriere (FR 2863145).
Regarding claims 8-9, Ferriere discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including the baking assist apparatus or band (10 is made of flexible elastic material and food grade material such as silicone; and the support element (20) (Fig. 1-6; Abstract) except the support element formed of an elastic deformable polymer; are formed of food grade silicone. However, Ferrier discloses the band (10) formed of an elastic deformable polymer and food grade silicone. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Ferriere, the support element formed of an elastic deformable polymer; are formed of food grade silicone, for the purpose of safety for the user.
Claim(s) 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferriere (FR 2863145) in view of Conry (US Pat. 1,734,328) (new cited).
Regarding claim 10, Ferriere discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including the band/baking assist apparatus (10) is formed of an elastic deformable polymer (Abstract) except the baking assist apparatus also includes a band expander for insertion within the band when deploy, and for applying an outward pressure therealong. Conry discloses the baking assist apparatus also includes a band expander (13) for insertion within the band when deploy, and for applying an outward pressure therealong (Fig. 1-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Ferriere, the baking assist apparatus also includes a band expander for insertion within the band when deploy, and for applying an outward pressure therealong, as taught by Conry, for the purpose of providing a pie ring that capable to expand to fit into the baking pan.
Regarding claim 13, Ferriere discloses the rigid peripheral wall of the pan (2’) is straight up vertical, the edge of the web element (via 11) configured for impressing into a surface of the unbaked pie crust (5.2) is said first edge, and wherein the length of the first edge of the band is shorter than the length of the second edge of the band (10) (Fig. 1-6). Conry discloses the rigid peripheral wall (side wall 11) of the pan slopes outward (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferriere (FR 2863145) in view of Finnie (US Pub. 2005/0211101) (new cited).
Regarding claims 14-15, Ferriere discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including the outward surface (12.1) of the band (10) is configured to have a predetermined wave-like (Fig. 5) except the pan is s fluted pie pan whose rigid peripheral wall has a predetermined wavelike configuration. Finnie discloses the pan is s fluted pie pan whose rigid peripheral wall has a predetermined wavelike configuration (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Ferriere, the pan is s fluted pie pan whose rigid peripheral wall has a predetermined wavelike configuration, as taught by Finnie, for the purpose of making the pie with fluted pie crust.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7828. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 9PM.
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 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.
/HUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
HUNG D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761