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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Description of the Drawings section details Figures 1-68, however the Drawings filed only include Figures 1-67. As such, the specification lists Figure 68 that does not appear present in the corresponding Drawings.
The use of the term Crock-Pot ®, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application (paragraphs 0003, 0005, 0006, 0012, 0014, and 0087). The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Paragraph 0099 refers to Figures 60-69. However, the Description of the Drawings does not list a Fig. 69.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “skin cover” of claims 12-14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Note: para. 0101 of the instant specification, as published, details skin(s) 110 shown in Figure 68. However, as detailed above, Figure 68 does not appear in the provided Drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “an upper a stacking mating surface” which should be “an upper stacking mating surface.”
Claim 2 recites the same language as above (“upper a stacking”) and should be corrected in the same manner.
Claim 2 recites “adjacent a” which should be “adjacent to a.”
Claim 3 recites “en” which should be “an.”
Claim 6 recites “for powering on and off and on/off,” which is unnecessarily duplicative statement. Claim 4 should be amended to recite a single instance of on and off in a consistent manner.
Claim 11 recites “a utensil” which should be “the utensil” to be consistent with claim 9.
Claims not expressly addressed herein necessarily inherit the informalities detailed above based on their respective dependency therefrom.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Claim 1 recites “a bottom mating surface complimentary configured to be mated to an upper stacking mating surface” which renders the claim indefinite as the aforementioned limitation contains a grammatical error that leads to confusion as to the intended scope of the claim language. Specifically, it is not clear if “complimentary” is correctly placed or an error. It is not clear, for instance, if the claim language should read “a bottom mating surface complimentary to the upper stacking mating surface and configured to be mated to an upper stacking mating surface,” “a bottom mating surface
Claim 1 recites “an upper stacking mating surface of another like formed appliance” which renders the claim indefinite as “like formed appliance” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear from the claim language is such an appliance must be exactly the same as the appliance of claim 1, if the use of “like formed” allows for variations of the appliance of claim 1, or if the use of “like formed” refer to some other kind of appliance. As such, it is not clear as to the intended scope of “like formed appliance.”
Claim 1 recites a stand operably connected to said housing “of said upwardly disposed appliance” which renders the claim indefinite as “said upwardly disposed appliance” lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear what appliance is being referenced.
Claim 1 recites, relative to the stand, “to enable disposal on a surface below” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what “below” is intended to refer. For instance, on a surface below the appliance or below the housing?
Claim 1 recites, relative to the stand, “to maintain said upwardly disposed appliance in an elevated normal position relative to the stand” which renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear what an “elevated normal position” is. It is clear what an elevated position is when viewed relative to a stand that is configured to support a housing. However, the claim requires an elevated “normal” position. It is not reasonably clear in what the normal position would be.
Claim 4 recites “the appliances” which renders the claim indefinite “the appliances” lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear which appliances are being referenced.
Remaining dependent claims not explicitly addressed herein necessarily inherit the above indefiniteness as a result of their respective dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coblentz (US2015/0257575).
Regarding claim 1, Coblentz teaches thermal appliance (slow cooker; paragraphs 0001-0002), which includes: (Figure 3) a housing (taken as body 14) having an insert operably contained therein (body 30; para. 0048) for receiving product for human consumption (para. 0049; food to be cooked), said housing having an upper a stacking mating surface (upper surface 13),
PNG
media_image1.png
564
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 of Coblentz (annotated)
a bottom mating surface (taken as the features indicated by the above annotated arrows)
PNG
media_image2.png
726
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 8 of Coblentz
complementary configured to be mated to an upper stacking mating surface of another like formed appliance (the bottom mating surfaces are shown mating with an upper surface of another appliance 12 in Figure 8); and
a stand ([Paragraph 0012 of the instant specification refers to “a stand” as “space saving legs that extend down”] Corbentz shows, in Figure 6, the appliance 12 having four legs 48 on the bottom surface 11 that add stability to the appliance and also aid in facilitating stacking of the appliances on top of each other. Para. 0057) operably connected to said housing of said upwardly disposed appliance and to enable disposal on a surface below (the legs 48 allow for the appliance 12 to be disposed on a surface below the appliance, such as the floor or a countertop) when said appliance is mated with another like appliance to maintain said upwardly disposed appliance in an elevated normal position relative to said stand (as shown in Figure 8).
Regarding claim 2, Coblentz teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein said upper a stacking mating surface (13) is adjacent a back (rear surface 17) of said housing (14) of said appliance (12) and said bottom mating surface is adjacent a front (front surface 15) of said housing [Note: the claims do not recite nor require the surfaces to be directly adjacent to one another. Coblentz teaches the claimed surfaces indirectly adjacent to the corresponding surface).
Regarding claim 3, Coblentz teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein said housing (14) is equipped with a heating element for heating said insert (30) (Coblentz teaches a control dial 19 that allows the setting of different modes including off, low, high, and warm and the use of an electrical cable 21 to power the appliances. See paragraphs 0047 and 0058. Coblentz further teaches, in paragraph 0001, that slow cookers are electrical cooking appliances that are used for simmering that allows for the unattended cooking of various foods. While Coblentz does not explicitly state the presence of a heating element, one is necessarily present in order for the slow cooking appliance to function as intended).
Regarding claim 4, Coblentz teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 3, and further teaches wherein an electrical power inlet line (Fig. 1; power cable 21) which extends through said housing (14) (power cable 21 must include wires or leads that extend passed the housing and into the appliance in order to connect to the heating element) to power said heating element in a manner which does not impede the interconnect-ability of the appliances (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Coblentz teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 4, and further teaches wherein a power outlet (Figs. 2, 4, and 5; electrical connector 22) disposed on the housing (14) operably connected (via connector 20) to said electrical power inlet line (21) for supplying power to another adjacent appliance (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0051-0052).
Regarding claim 8, Coblentz teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches a removable lid configured to cover said insert in a complementary manner (lid 33 which removably covers bowl 30; para. 0050).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coblentz in view of Vernaglia (US2014/0076174).
Regarding claim 6, Coblentz teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, including the housing (14) being equipped with a power panel having a switch (control knob 19) for power on and off the appliance (para. 0047; 19 turns the appliance on and off).
Coblentz is silent on the use of indicator lights.
Vernaglia relates to a slow cooking appliance (para. 0002) and teaches the appliance (10) having a housing (12), an insert (16), and a lid (18). Vernaglia further teaches a power panel (control panel 44) having a switch (on/off switch 46 and mode switch 52) for powering on/of indicator lights (cooking mode indicator 50; para. 0027).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Coblentz with Vernaglia, by adding to the appliance of Coblentz, with the control panel and cooking mode indicator lights taught by Vernaglia, for in doing so would provide a means for displaying cooking temperature and/or time duration to the user (para. 0027 of Vernaglia).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coblentz in view of Holinka (US2022/0287499).
Regarding claim 7, Coblentz teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for wherein said housing is equipped with a visible temperature indicator operably connected to said insert in a manner to display temperature therein.
Holinka relates to a slow cooking appliance (para. 0002; Figs. 1-3) comprising a housing (12) containing an insert (16) and a lid (26). Holinka further teaches the housing being equipped with a visible temperature indicator (Fig. 3; actual temperature indicator 88) operably connected to said insert (16) in a manner to display temperature therein (via temperature probe 48, which measures the actual temperature within 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Coblentz with Holinka, by adding to the housing of the appliance and control circuitry of Coblentz, with the temperature indicator and temperature probe taught by Holinka, for in doing so would provide a means for ascertaining the actual temperature during use and convey such information to a user, thereby improving upon user accessibility.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coblentz in view of Schandel (US2010/0251902).
Regarding claims 9-11, Coblentz teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 8, except as detailed below.
Coblentz teaches the lid including a handle (34) that has a thickness (opening 35) that allows the lid to be stored in the open position on a lid holder (44) attached to the housing (Figs. 1-2).
Coblentz is silent on the handle having a concave aspect to aid in retention of a utensil (claim 9), wherein said lid is configured with a thickness to seat in a groove of a portion of an upper surface of said housing (claim 10), and wherein said lid is configured with a thickness to seat in a groove of a portion of an upper surface of said housing and when so seated said handle is positioned with said concave aspect upward to retain a utensil (claim 11).
Schandel relates to a slow cooking appliance (para. 0001; Figures 1-2) and teaches a lid (40) equipped with a handle (42) which has a concave aspect (slot 44) to aid in retention of a utensil (50),
PNG
media_image3.png
744
408
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Schandel (annotated)
wherein said lid (40) is configured with a thickness (bottom rim of the lid that couples to the indicated groove) to seat in a groove of a portion of an upper surface of said housing, and wherein said lid (40) is configured with a thickness to seat in a groove of a portion of an upper surface of said housing (bottom rim of the lid that couples to the indicated groove) and when so seated said handle is positioned with said concave aspect upward to retain a utensil (as shown above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Coblentz with Schandel, by adding to the handle of Coblentz, with the slot for retaining a utensil taught by Schandel, for in doing so would provide a means for storing a utensil used during cooking when not currently needed (para. 0003 and 0025).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Coblentz with Schandel, by adding to the housing of Coblentz, with the groove taught by Schandel, for in doing so would provide an alternative mating connection between the housing, the insert, and the lid.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coblentz in view of NPL (https://www.amazon.com/Luxja-Cooker-Cover-Aluminum-Lining/dp/B08M5WGDNB/; Published 10/29/2020)
Regarding claims 12, Coblentz teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for an interchangeable skin cover connected to said housing (claim 12), wherein said skin cover is reusable (claim 13), and wherein said skin cover is a heat resistant material (claim 14).
PNG
media_image4.png
460
464
media_image4.png
Greyscale
NPL Figure
NPL relates to a slow cooker cover and teaches an interchangeable skin cover connected to said housing, wherein said skin cover is reusable, and wherein said skin cover is a heat resistant material (NPL details that the cover includes aluminum foil lining, which is a heat resistant material, and water resistant nylon which allows for easy cleaning. This makes the cover reusable and interchangeable with another cover as the cover is removable from the slow cooker and a user is able to use any other cover.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Coblentz with NPL, by adding to the appliance of Coblentz, with the cover taught by NPL, for in doing so would provide storage for the appliance when not in use in a manner that protects the appliance from dust.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 1:00-9:00 PM (ET).
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761