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 Interpretation
With respect to the claimed colander, collapsible will be understood to describe any colander where at least a portion of the body with perforations is “capable of being folded into a more compact shape” (Meriam Webster). In the specifications, the applicant acknowledged that the “body 12 can also be referred to as a membrane or a flexible membrane” (Specification, para. 21). A flexible membrane will be interpreted as a thin pliable layer that can withstand plastic deformation without breaking.
Horizontally offset will be interpreted as referencing the orientation of the handles when they are in an “rotated or open configuration,” where the top handle is rotated to a position opposite to the bottom handle (Specification, para. 29). It is understood that when the bottom handle 22 is rotated along the direction “B”, the handles are horizontally offset (Fig. 4C).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 102(a)(1), (a)(2) as being anticipated by Farkas (2019/0365132).
With respect to claim 1, Farkas anticipates a colander (100, Fig. 1) comprising a split handle (110, 112) having a top handle (112) coupled to a top rim (108) and a bottom handle (110) coupled to a bottom rim (106); the bottom handle (110) being rotatable with respect to the top handle (112) (Examiner note: The claims do not require or recite any specific structure for the rotation of the handle. In Farkas, the colanders are separable, and thus, a user is able to rotate the bottom handle relative to the top handle. Figs. 1-4, paras. 23, 28-30); and a body (122, 124, 134) having a plurality of perforations (Fig. 5A, para. 27: “the base member 134 includes a plurality of holes (not labelled)”) and being attached to the bottom rim (106) (Figs. 4, 5A, paras. 25, 27).
With respect to claim 2, Farkas anticipates all the limitations of claim 1, and further anticipates wherein the body (122, 124, 134) is collapsible (Figs. 3-4, para. 25: the colander body “adapted to fold … into a collapsed configuration and unfold … into an open configuration.”).
With respect to claim 4, Farkas further anticipates the bottom handle (110) rotates up to 180° with respect to the top handle (112). As discussed above, Farkas teaches that the bottom handle (110) is rotatable about top handle (112) to any degree, and thus, anticipates the immediate claim language of 180° of rotation.
With respect to claim 5, Farkas further anticipates the bottom handle (110) rotates up to 360° with respect to the top handle (112). Farkas also teaches that the bottom handle (110) can be rotated 360° relative to the top handle (112).
With respect to claim 9, Farkas further anticipates, the top handle (112) is horizontally offset from the bottom handle (110) (Fig. 1). A user can rotate the handles in Farkas relative to each other in such a way that the bottom handle is horizontally offset with the top handle.
With respect to claim 10, Farkas further anticipates, the top handle (112) is placed directly over the bottom handle (110) when in a closed state (Fig. 1, para. 23, 28).
With respect to claim 11, Farkas anticipates a collapsible colander (100, Fig. 1) comprising: a first handle (112) coupled to a first rim (108); a second handle (110) coupled to a second rim (106) and being rotatable with respect to the first handle (Examiner note: The colanders are separable, and thus, a user is able to rotate the second handle relative to the first handle. Figs. 1-4, paras. 23, 28-30); and a flexible membrane (122, 124, 134, para. 25) attached to the first (108) and second (106) rims (Examiner note: In the stacked position, the first and second rims are attached to each other, creating a connection with both rims and the flexible membrane (122, 124, 134). Figs. 1-4, 5A, paras. 23-4, 28).
With respect to claim 13, Farkas anticipates all the limitations of claim 11, and, wherein the second handle (110) rotates up to 180° with respect to the first handle (112) (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 14, Farkas further anticipates the second handle (110) rotates up to 360° with respect to the first handle (112) (Fig. 4).
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.
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 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farkas (2019/0365132) and further in view of Young et al. (2021/0177213).
As discussed above, Farkas discloses the device in claim 1 (supra para. 3).
Farkas does not disclose a bottommost surface of the body that is generally flat. However, Young et al. discloses a colander (15) capable of being, “flattened or axially collapsed to a minimum size,” with a “perforated bottom panel (16) [that] is generally planar” (Figs. 1-4, paras 11, 23).
Regarding the claim limitation that the bottom surface is flat, at the time the invention was made it would have been obvious mater of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a flat bottom as claimed instead of round as prior art teaches, because applicant has not disclosed that the flat bottom provides an advantage is used for particular purpose or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the Applicant' s invention to perform equally well with flat or round shape of the bottom surface, because both shapes perform the function of draining liquids equally well (MPEP 2144.04 IV B). Therefore, claim 3 is obvious over Farkas in view of Young.
As discussed above, Farkas discloses the device in claim 11 (supra para. 9).
Farkas does not disclose a bottommost surface of the flexible membrane that is generally flat. Nevertheless, Young et al. discloses a colander (15) capable of being, “flattened or axially collapsed to a minimum size,” with a “perforated bottom panel (16) [that] is generally planar” (Figs. 1-4, paras 11, 23).
Regarding the claim limitation that the bottom surface is flat, at the time the invention was made it would have been obvious mater of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a flat bottom as claimed instead of round as prior art teaches, because applicant has not disclosed that the flat bottom provides an advantage is used for particular purpose or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the Applicant' s invention to perform equally well with flat or round shape of the bottom surface, because both shapes perform the function of draining liquids equally well (MPEP 2144.04 IV B). Therefore, claim 12 is obvious over Farkas in view of Young.
Claims 6-8 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farkas (2019/0365132) and further in view of Liu (10,610,040).
As discussed above, Farkas anticipates all of the limitations of claim 1 (supra para. 3).
Liu is directed to a brewing/juicer cup apparatus. Liu is a relevant field of endeavor (analogous art) for the application because they are both related to handheld kitchen appliances, share structural similarities (perforated bodies with rotatable components) and address the similar problems (securing rotatable bodies).
With respect to claim 6, Farkas does not disclose a rim connector disposed between the top rim and the bottom rim to secure the bottom rim to the body.
However, Liu discloses a rim connector (40, Fig. 1) disposed between a top rim (320/30) and a bottom rim (120) to secure the bottom rim (120) to the body (110) (Examiner Note: The filter plate (130) is integral with cone (110), secured to the cup cover (120) and positioned between the seal ring and housing (320/30), thus, meeting the immediate claim language. Figs. 1-4, Col. 5 L 26-7, Col. 7 L 35-41).
With respect to claim 7, Farkas does not disclose the rim connector is disposed within a circumferential area defined by the bottom rim. However, Liu discloses the rim connector (40) is disposed within a circumferential area defined by the bottom rim (120) (Examiner Note: The seal ring (40) is annular and situated within the circumference of the cup cover (120). Figs. 1-3, Col. 2 L 27-9).
With respect to claim 8, Farkas does not disclose the rim connector has a plurality of slots to receive a plurality of respective tabs to secure the bottom rim to the body. However, Liu discloses the rim connector (40) has a plurality of slots (420) to receive a plurality of respective tabs (134) to secure the bottom rim (120) to the body (110). (Examiner note: The claims do not require or recite any specific structure for securing the bottom rim to the body. In Liu, the first bosses (134) on the filter plate (130) pass through the slots (420) in the seal ring (40) to secure the cone (110) to the inner wall of the cup cover (120) Figs. 1-7, Col. 6 L 26-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to modify Farkas with Liu connection for securing rotatable bodies in order to improve the connection between rims. Circumferential rim connectors are well-known in the art and a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the colanders in Farkas could be secured along any shared contact surface (not just the handle as claimed) without effecting functionality. Therefore, claims 6-8 are rejected as obvious over Farkas, in view of Liu.
As discussed above, Farkas discloses the device in claim 11 (supra para. 9).
With respect to claim 15, Farkas does not disclose a rim connector disposed between the first rim and the second rim to secure the second rim to the flexible membrane. However, Liu discloses a rim connector (40, Fig. 1) disposed between a first rim (320/30) and a second rim (120) to secure the second rim (120) to the flexible membrane (110) Examiner Note: The filter plate (130) is integral with cone (110), connected to the cup cover (120) and positioned between the seal ring and housing (320/30), thus, the prior art meets the immediate claim language. Figs. 1-4, Col. 5 L 26-7, Col. 7 L 35-41).
With respect to claim 16, Farkas does not disclose the rim connector is disposed within a circumferential area defined by the second rim. However, Liu discloses the rim connector (40) is disposed within a circumferential area defined by the second rim (120) (Examiner Note: The seal ring (40) is annular and situated within the circumference of the cup cover (120). Figs. 1-3, Col. 2 L 27-9).
With respect to claim 17, Farkas does not disclose the rim connector has a plurality of slots to receive a plurality of respective tabs to secure the second rim to the flexible membrane. However, Liu discloses the rim connector (40) has a plurality of slots (420) to receive a plurality of respective tabs (134) to secure the second rim (120) to the flexible membrane (110). (Examiner note: The claims do not require or recite any specific structure for securing the bottom rim to the body. In Liu, the first bosses (134) on the filter plate (130) pass through the slots (420) in the seal ring (40) to secure the cone (110) to the inner wall of the cup cover (120) Figs. 1-7, Col. 6 L 26-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to modify Farkas with Liu connection for securing rotatable bodies in order to improve the connection between rims. Circumferential rim connectors are well-known in the art and a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the colanders in Farkas could be secured along any shared contact surface (not just the handle as claimed) without effecting functionality. Therefore, claims 15-17 are rejected as obvious over Farkas, in view of Liu.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Curtin (2008/0230462) specifically contemplates working over the sink except they implement this functionality through sliding arms around the rim portion of the colander. (Para. 36: “the collapsible container may be configured to enable the rim of the container to rest on the rim of a sink so that the colander is suspended over the sink.”)
Rucker (1,948,771) discloses a rim connection of tabs and slots circumferentially defined within the rim. (Line 56-61: “A fine metal wire screen or sieve... fastened to a metal rim on which are three or four projections or rests which fit into depressions in the [] rim of the container, thus suspending the strainer in the proper position.”)
Burton (5,322,196) discloses a similar rim connection as well. (Col. 3 L 10-27: “Equally spaced around the open end of the container body 13 are four holding slits 10. … They are used to house four slits 4 on a strainer 3. The strainer 3 is used to prevent anything other than grease from entering into the container body 13. It has a ring shape with thin wires forming a complete circular screen, which fits securely on the container body 13 into the holding slits 10,” Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN MICHAEL CHAMBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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.
/JMC/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 December 30, 2025
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761