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 § 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 13, 15-17, 19-28, 30-32, and 34-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hobbs (1,544,231) in view of Handwerker (2021/0298312) and Nelson et al. (875,451), hereinafter Nelson.
Regarding claim 1, Hobbs teaches an article for receiving or holding a food item substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts comprising:
a. a blade 11 comprising a top surface, a bottom surface, and a perimeter, the perimeter comprising two straight perimeter sides and two curved perimeter sides;
b. a rim 14 extending along the two straight perimeter sides and a first curved perimeter side of the two curved perimeter sides of the blade to a top outer edge elevated from the blade; and
c. a plurality of projections or recesses on the top surface, the bottom surface, or both.
See Figs. 1-2.
A-Hobbs does not teach the article having a plurality of recesses on the top surface.
Handwerker teaches an article for receiving or holding a pizza having a plurality of recesses (30a-c) on a top surface for catching dusting powder for reducing dusting powder conveyed into an oven which is in turn burned and causes the bad taste on the pizza. See Fig. 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the article in Hobbs a plurality of recesses as taught by Handwerker so that the article could be used to transfer pizza to an oven without spreading to much dusting powder in the oven which the oven may burn the dusting powder and causes bad taste on the pizza.
B-Hobbs does not teach the rim extending along the two straight perimeter sides.
Nelson teaches an article for receiving or holding a food item comprising a blade and a rim 2 extending along two straight perimeter sides. See Fig. 3. The rim 2 restricts the lateral movement of the food item.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to extend the rim 14 in Hobbs to the two straight perimeter sides as taught by Nelson for restricting the lateral movement of the food item which may cause it dropped during a transferring process.
Regarding claim 2, the blade 11 being flat is best seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the blade 11 having 6 sides (counting two curved corners) are best seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 7, the blade 11 having one open side is best seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 9, the rim 14 extending above the blade is best seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 13, Hobbs teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for providing a coating on the top surface or the bottom surface of the blade. To provide a coating such as anti-sticking layer or colored logo of a company on the blade would be within the knowledge of one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Nelson teaches the rim having different height in Fig. 3.
Regarding claims 16-17, Hobbs teaches a lip 15.
Regarding claim 19, the article can be used as a pizza peel.
Regarding claim 20, Hobbs teaches the article made from thin sheet of metal. Therefore, Hobbs’ teaching would cover aluminum sheet material.
Regarding claim 21, the article can be used one time.
Regarding claims 20 and 22, Hobbs teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the material of the article.
To select a well-known material such as cellulose, paper, paperboard, molded paper, polymer, post-consumer recycled paper or paperboard, post-consumer recycled polymer, aluminum, or a mixture thereof would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 23, Hobbs teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the article holding a food item of at least 8 oz. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to make the article holding at least 8 oz, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 24, Hobbs teaches a pizza peel substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts comprising:
a. a blade comprising a plurality of sides, a top surface, and a bottom surface, wherein one of the plurality of sides is flat and open and has a curved outline, while the remaining sides of the plurality of sides are curved upwardly;
b. a plurality of projections or recesses 102 on the top surface, the bottom surface, or both; and
c. a rim 15 joined to at least three sides of the blade and extending to a top outer edge of the rim, wherein the rim extends along at least three sides of the blade that are curved upwardly.
See Figs. 1-2.
A-Hobbs does not teach the article having a plurality of recesses on the top surface.
Handwerker teaches an article for receiving or holding a pizza having a plurality of recesses (30a-c) on a top surface for catching dusting powder for reducing dusting powder conveyed into an oven which is in turn burned and causes the bad taste on the pizza. See Fig. 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the article in Hobbs a plurality of recesses as taught by Handwerker so that the article could be used to transfer pizza to an oven without spreading to much dusting powder in the oven which the oven may burn the dusting powder and causes bad taste on the pizza.
B-Hobbs does not teach the side 14 with its rim 15 extending along the two straight perimeter sides.
Nelson teaches an article for receiving or holding a food item comprising a blade and a side 2 extending along two straight perimeter sides. See Fig. 3. The side 2 restricts the lateral movement of the food item.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to extend the side 14 with its rim 15 in Hobbs to the two straight perimeter sides as taught by Nelson for restricting the lateral movement of the food item which may cause it dropped during a transferring process.
Regarding claim 25, the center of the back curve in Hobbs defines two sides in addition of two straight sides. Therefore, there are four sides.
Regarding claim 26, Nelson teaches the rim having different height in Fig. 3.
Regarding claims 27 and 28, a lip 15 is best seen in Fig. 2 in Hobbs.
Regarding claim 30, Hobbs teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the material of the article.
To select a well-known material such as cellulose, paper, paperboard, molded paper, polymer, post-consumer recycled paper or paperboard, post-consumer recycled polymer, aluminum, or a mixture thereof would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 31, Hobbs teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the article holding a food item of at least 8oz. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to make the article holding at least 24 oz, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 32, Hobbs teaches a method of handling a food item using an article substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts, the method comprising:
a) providing the article, the article comprising:
i) a blade 11 comprising a top surface, a bottom surface, and a perimeter, the perimeter comprising two straight perimeter sides and two curved perimeter sides;
ii) a rim 14 extending along the two straight perimeter sides and a first curved perimeter side of the two curved perimeter sides of the blade to a top outer edge elevated from the blade and
iii) a plurality of projections or recesses on the top surface, the bottom surface, or both;
b. gripping or holding a part of the rim by hand;
c. causing the food item to be placed onto the blade; and
d. moving the article containing the food item therein to a desired location.
See Figs. 1 and 2.
A-Hobbs does not teach the article having a plurality of recesses on the top surface.
Handwerker teaches an article for receiving or holding a pizza having a plurality of recesses (30a-c) on a top surface for catching dusting powder for reducing dusting powder conveyed into an oven which is in turn burned and causes the bad taste on the pizza. See Fig. 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the article in Hobbs a plurality of recesses as taught by Handwerker so that the article could be used to transfer pizza to an oven without spreading to much dusting powder in the oven which the oven may burn the dusting powder and causes bad taste on the pizza.
B-Hobbs does not teach the rim extending along the two straight perimeter sides.
Nelson teaches an article for receiving or holding a food item comprising a blade and a rim 2 extending along two straight perimeter sides. See Fig. 3. The rim 2 restricts the lateral movement of the food item.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to extend the rim 14 in Hobbs to the two straight perimeter sides as taught by Nelson for restricting the lateral movement of the food item which may cause it dropped during a transferring process.
Regarding claim 34, the food can be slid off the blade.
Regarding claim 35, a user can use one hand to perform the steps.
Regarding claim 36, the food item can be supported on the blade without contacting a hand.
Regarding claim 37, the article can be used for a pizza.
Regarding claim 38, the food item can be cut directly on the blade.
Claims 18 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hobbs (1,544,231) in view of Handwerker (2021/0298312) and Nelson et al. (875,451), hereinafter Nelson as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of McMurtrie (4,465,061).
The modified pizza peel in Hobbs teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the rim 14 having a plurality of projections.
McMurtrie teaches a metal sheet having a plurality of projections or recessions 26 (depending how one looks) for increasing strength and rigidity of the metal sheet.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the rim in Hobbs a plurality of projections as taught by McMurtrie for increasing strength and rigidity of the rim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 33 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there is no teaching of using the blade 11 in Hobbs for cutting the food item from a larger food. The blade 11 is designed for supporting but not for cutting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the modified rim would interfere with the nesting structure of Hobbs, this argument is not persuasive. The pie tin has a bottom and a flared outwardly inclined wall with a horizontal lip similar to the contour of the rim 14 and the lip 15 of Hobbs. The bottom of the pie tin stays within the boundary of the tray 11. The tin lip and the outwardly inclined wall rest on the lip of the pie utensil and are restrained at three locations (shown as double head arrows annotated Fig. 2) which are partially at the rear side (Fig. 1) and two opposite sides of the utensil. The pie tin cannot back slide or side slide when it is carried on the utensil. Therefore, the modified utensil snuggly supports the pie tin lip since the pie tin is restrained at three locations.
PNG
media_image1.png
845
1040
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights