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 .
Status of the Claims
In the claim dated 09/12/2023, claims 1-9 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, line 2, “said plurality of holes” should be “said plurality of apertures”.
Claim 9 recites the same limitation “said plurality of holes” which should be amended as “said plurality of apertures”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajasekaran (US 20240164587 A1, effectively filing date 11/23/2022) in view of Prommel (US 20160066743 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Rajasekaran discloses
A versatile, multi-purpose kitchen appliance (cookware set 1, see figs.1-9. The term “versatile, multi-purpose” recites purpose of intended use of the invention and it is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction (see MPEP 211.02, section II) comprising:
a circular base (40, see figs.1-2 and 6) ;
a (sidewall of the vessel 10, see figs.1-9. See sidewall in annotated fig. below) extending upward from said circular base (40, see figs.1-2 and 6);
a plurality of apertures (see apertures in annotated fig.9 below, which are openings of the wire mesh 40) in said circular base (40, see fig.1,2, 6,9, and para.0031: “ basket 40 is made of metal wire mesh”); and
one or more notches (one of the combo 13-14, see fig.6) at a top of said (sidewall of the vessel 10, see figs.1-9. See sidewall in annotated fig.2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
412
689
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
543
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figures 2 and 9 of Rajasekaran
Rajasekaran teaches the curved sidewall (see sidewall of 11 in figs.1-9), but silent on a cylindrical sidewall.
Prommel discloses a cooking pot for home kitchen cooking, comprising:
a cylindrical sidewall (cylindrical sidewall of 12, see fig.1-2 and claim 1: “ a food holding vessel defined by a bottom and a cylindrical sidewall extending upwardly therefrom”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the sidewall of Rajasekaran to become the cylindrical sidewall as taught by Prommel in order to ensure heat spreads uniformly, reducing hot spots and ensuring consistent cooking.
Regarding claim 2, Rajasekaran further discloses said one or more notches (13 or 14, see fig.6) includes two (13 and 14) or more that are spaced equidistance apart (see fig.6, distance from item 13 to item 14 is equal to the distance from the item 14 to item 13).
Regarding claim 3, Rajasekaran in view of Prommel further discloses said circular base (40, see fig.3) has a tapered bottom (see figs.1-9) such that said diameter of said circular base (diameter at the bottom of 40, see fig.9) is decreased to a size less than a diameter of a top (diameter of the rim 12, see fig.7 ) of said cylindrical sidewall (cylindrical sidewall of 10 in the modification of Rajasekaran in view of Prommel, see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, Rajasekaran in view of Prommel discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 1, except said circular base has a diameter between 3.5 and 5.5 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify diameter of said circular base to between 3.5 and 5.5 inches since it has been held where the general working conditions of a claim are known it is not inventive to determine optimum or workable ranges through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05). The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (fig. 6), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). In this case, Rajasekaran in view of Prommel teaches a certain diameter of said circular base and having a specific diameter of the said circular base is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the diameter of the said circular base to between 3.5 and 5.5 inches is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. Doing so provides better heat/steam distribution for even cooking and accommodates various food shapes as desired.
Regarding claim 5, Rajasekaran in view of Prommel discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 4, except said circular base has a diameter of 4.25 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify said circular base to have a diameter of 4.25 inches since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Doing so allows for cooking small, delicate food items or small quantities of food which is desirable for certain applications.
Regarding claim 6, Rajasekaran in view of Prommel discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 1,except said cylindrical sidewall has a height between 2-3 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cylindrical sidewall to have a height between 2-3 inches since it has been held where the general working conditions of a claim are known it is not inventive to determine optimum or workable ranges through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05). The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (fig. 6), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). In this case, Rajasekaran in view of Prommel teaches a certain height of the cylindrical sidewall and having a specific height of the cylindrical sidewall is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the height of the cylindrical sidewall to between 2-3 inches is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. The modified sidewalls make it easier to access the food with spatulas and other utensils, facilitating stirring, turning, and flipping items like eggs, pancakes, or chicken, cutlets.
Regarding claim 7, Rajasekaran in view of Prommel discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 6, except said cylindrical sidewall has a height of 2 7/32 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify said cylindrical sidewall to have a height of 2 7/32 inches since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. The modified sidewall allows to cook small, delicate food items or small quantities of food which is desirable for certain applications.
Claims 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajasekaran in view of Prommel as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Yang (CN205286085U)
Regarding claim 8, Rajasekaran in view of Prommel discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 1, except each of said plurality of holes in said circular base have a diameter between 1/32 and ¼ inches.
Yang discloses a Multi -functional cooking apparatus, comprising:
each of said plurality of holes (25, see fig.1) in said circular base (2, see fig.1) have a diameter between 1/32 and ¼ inches (see page 1, line 36: “the basket and the lower basket of at least one through-hole diameter is between 2-5mm”.Therefore, the diameter 5mm (=0.197 inches) of Yang is within the claimed range “between 1/32 and ¼ inches” (=0.03125-0.25 inches)).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP2144.05, I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify each of said plurality of holes in said circular base of Rajasekaran in view of Prommel to have the diameter between 1/32 and 1/4 inches as taught by Yang. Doing so provides good separation of liquid and foods and ensures that smaller food items, such as chopped vegetables or dumplings, do not fall through the holes into the lower cooking liquid/ space (See page 2, line 35 of Yang).
Regarding claim 9, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 8, except each of said plurality of holes in said circular base has a diameter of 1/8".
Yang further discloses each of said plurality of holes (25, see fig.1) in said circular base (2, see fig.1) has a diameter of 1/8" (see page 1, line 36: “the basket and the lower basket of at least one through-hole diameter is between 2-5mm”, 2 mm is approximately 0.079 inches and 5 mm is approximately 0.197 inches. Therefore, the diameter in the range 0.079- 0.197 inches overlaps the claimed “1/8"” (=0.125")).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP2144.05, I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify each of said plurality of holes in said circular base of Rajasekaran in view of Prommel to have the diameter of 1/8" as taught by Yang since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05). Doing so provides good separation of liquid and foods and ensures that smaller food items, such as chopped vegetables or dumplings, do not fall through the holes into the lower cooking liquid/ space (See page 2, line 35 of Yang).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20220322886A1 discloses cookware utensil system having at least one cookware further comprising a cookware body with a perimetric edge and at least one handle extending outwardly from the cookware body, and a utensil having at least one notch that is configured to engage with the at least one handle.
.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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 on (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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761