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 § 102
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Cabilock 2pcs Glass Egg Cup [hereinafter Cabilock]
Regarding claim 1, Cabilock discloses “an eggshell apparatus” (annotated fig.1) “for assisting removal of the eggshell of a hardboiled egg” (intended use), comprising:
“a first body portion” (annotated fig.1, i.e., can be an upper housing);
“a second body portion” (annotated fig.1, i.e., can be a lower housing) detachably couplable to “the first body portion” (annotated fig.1), wherein
“the first and second body portions are configured to be coupled together to define an inner cavity” (annotated fig.1 shows the first and second body portions are configured to be coupled together) “for receiving the hardboiled egg” (functional language);
wherein “the inner cavity comprises an inner wall complementary to the shape of the hardboiled egg” (annotated fig.1), “the inner cavity is sized and shaped to provide a space between the hardboiled egg and the inner wall” (the inner cavity is capable of providing a space between a product “egg” and the inner wall depends on the size of the egg. On page 4, i.e., production information, i.e., product dimensions 3.54 x 2.36 x 2.36 inches and annotated fig.1 show the dimension the egg having a height about 90mm and diameter about 60 mm. In addition, “hardboiled egg” is treated as product not part of the apparatus. See MPEP 2115, i.e., Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims), and
“the eggshell peeling apparatus further comprises one or more water outlets in fluidic communication with the inner cavity” (annotated fig.1a).
Regarding claim 2, Cabilock discloses “the inner cavity has a three-dimension profile resembling an egg-shape, with the inner wall evenly surrounding the hardboiled egg received therein” (annotated fig.1 shows at least portions of inner cavity having a three-dimension profile resembling an egg-shape, with the inner wall is capable of evenly surrounding the hardboiled egg received therein).
Regarding claim 3, Cabilock discloses “the inner wall provides a collision surface, the collision surface is smooth and free of protrusions” (annotated fig.1 shows the inner wall provides a collision surface, the collision surface is substantially smooth and free of protrusions).
Regarding claim 4, Cabilock discloses “the inner cavity” (annotated fig.1 shows an egg-shaped support apparatus) “is sized and shaped to accommodate a poultry egg with a diameter of 40mm to 45mm and a height of 53mm to 61mm” (the inner cavity is capable of accommodating different size of eggs. On page 4, i.e., production information, i.e., product dimensions 3.54 x 2.36 x 2.36 inches and annotated fig.1 show the dimension the egg having a height about 90mm and diameter about 60 mm. This suggest that the inner cavity is capable of holding a poultry egg having a diameter of 40mm to 45mm and a height of 53mm to 61mm. Examiner noted that “eggs” is not part of apparatus. MPEP 2115, i.e., Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims).
Regarding claim 5, Cabilock discloses “the inner cavity is further dimensioned “such that a distance measured from the inner wall to a surface of the hardboiled egg is less than or equal to 5mm on average” (Annotated fig.1. MPEP 2115, i.e., Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. Examiner noted that inner cavity can be accommodated for an egg having the inner wall to a surface of the hardboiled egg is less than or equal to 5mm on average which does not require exactly less than 5mm (can be more than 5mm). Examiner noted that “less than or equal to 5mm on average” does not limited to only equal to 5mm and less).
Regarding claim 6, Cabilock discloses “the first and second body portions are provided with first and second coupling ends, respectively, the first and second coupling ends are complementary to each other” (annotated fig.1 shows first and second body portions and each body portion having coupling end and the coupling ends are complementary to each other).
Regarding claim 7, Cabilock discloses “the first and second coupling ends are arranged to prevent relative rotation between the first and the second body portions” (annotated fig.1 shows he first and second coupling ends having a wavy or zigzag shape and are arranged to prevent relative rotation between the first and the second body portions).
Regarding claim 8, Cabilock discloses “the first and second coupling ends form a non-sealing junction between the first and second body portions” (annotated fig.1 shows the first and second coupling ends form a non-sealing junction between the first and second body portions because there are gaps in between the non-sealing junction for water outlet).
Regarding claim 9, Cabilock discloses “the at least one water outlet is formed at the non-sealing junction” (annotated fig.1 shows the at least one water outlet is formed at the non-sealing junction).
Regarding claim 10, Cabilock discloses “the non-sealing junction has a wavy or zigzag shape extending around the circumference of the apparatus” (annotated fig.1 shows the non-sealing junction has a wavy or zigzag shape extending around the circumference of the apparatus).
Regarding claim 12, “the first and the second body portions are made of glass or ceramic” (please attached NPL, on page 1 of Cabilock, Bowl material: Glass).
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabilock 2pcs Glass Egg Cup [hereinafter Cabilock] in view of Design Choice.
Regarding claim 11, Cabilock disclose the inner cavity has a three-dimensional profile of at least partially an ovoid or a sphere.
Cabilock does not show an ovoid or a sphere for the inner cavity has a three-dimensional profile.
However, the applicant has not disclosed that an ovoid or a sphere solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected results. The examiner notes that the an ovoid or a sphere just to accommodate the shape of egg. As such, the examiner considers this limitation to be a design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious as a matter of design choice to modify Cabilock as proposed by the applicant, since the applicant has not disclosed that an ovoid or a sphere solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected results and it appears that Cabilock having substantially an ovoid or a sphere shape would perform equally well, since an ovoid or a sphere shape just to accommodate the shape of egg.
PNG
media_image1.png
1058
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1080
1116
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Drawing objections …” on page 09/12/2025.
In response, the drawing filed on 09/12/2025 overcome the drawing objection. Thus, the drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues “claim objection … 35 USC 112…” on page 7-8 of remark.
In response, the claim amendment overcome claim objection and 35 USC 112 objections and rejections.
(3) Applicant argues “35 USC 102 … “water outlet” … Applicant respectfully points out that cup of Cabilock is merely an egg-shaped cup, and not an egg cup for holding an egg. As advertised by Cabilock, the cup has a diameter of 6cm and a height of 9cm. The size of the Cabilock's cup is too big to steadily fit and hold a standard-sized egg with a diameter of 40mm to 45mm and a height of 53mm to 61mm (USDA standard) …” on pages 9-11 of remark.
In response, applicant’s argument that the references fail to show a standard-sized egg with a diameter of 40mm to 45mm and a height of 53mm to 61mm (USDA standard), it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., inner cavity is sized and shaped to provide a space between the hardboiled egg and the inner wall as recited in claim 1) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, Cabilock’s egg shaped holding container is capable of holding a standard-sized egg with a diameter of 40mm to 45mm and a height of 53mm to 61mm (USDA standard). In addition, change in size, shape of a container was not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04, IV. A. With respect to claim 4, the specific size of a poultry egg is considered as the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. With respect to water outlet, examiner agree that the term “outlet” can be interpreted as “a hole” or an opening. Annotated fig.1a of Cabilock clearly show at least one hole or opening to allow fluid communication with the inner cavity because the egg holding container is not a sealed and it has at least one opening or hole for fluid communication with the inner cavity. Applicant further argues para.0031 and 0034 of instant application. However, the applicant’s argument is moot because there is no claim language directed to those paragraphs.
(4) Applicant argues “Claims 4 and 5 … a distance less than or equal to 5 mm …” on page 11 of remark.
In response, examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim recites “a distance less than or equal to 5 mm on average” does not limit the distance to be less than or equal to 5 mm because “less than or equal to 5 mm on average” could be in some cases the distance is larger than 5 mm and some cases the distance can be less than 5 mm and overall distance on average.
(5) Applicant argues “35 USC 103 … the shape of ovoid or a sphere”.
In response, Cabilock’s egg shell container that is capable of holding an egg and it depends on the size of the egg. Examiner noted that “to provide an even space between inner wall and the egg” is considered as relative term. In this case, Cabilock’s substantially sphere shape egg shell container is capable of holding an egg and provide an even space between inner wall and the egg. There is no suggestion to what degree is considered as “an even space”. In addition, change in size, shape of a container were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04, IV. A.
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 JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761