DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on April 6, 2026 has been entered. The following has occurred: Claims 1, 8-10, 12, and 17 are amended; Claim 11 is canceled; Claims 18-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-10 and 12-17 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been maintained in light of the amendment.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veltrop et al. (US6415934B1, hereinafter, “Veltrop”) in view of Laub et al (US20150313412A1, hereinafter, “Laub”).
Claim 1, Veltrop discloses a basket for holding food products in a cooking apparatus (abstract and Fig. 1, basket 12; col. 2 lines 48-51), comprising:
a frame (col. 2, lines 51-52; wire form frame 14) comprising a first side wall and a second side wall defining a space therebetween (fig. 1: the first and second side wall extend from rods 26c until rods 28 and include elements 20), the first side wall defining a first set of coupling slots and the second side wall defining a second set of coupling slots (fig. 2, fig. 4: slots 38a, 38b and 38c); and
a plurality of shelves (fig. 1, 16 and col. 2, line 62) vertically stackable between the first side wall and the second side wall and pivotable between a substantially horizontal position and a substantially vertical position (fig. 11; col. 11 lines 8-21), each shelf of the plurality of shelves comprising a first side rod member and a second side rod member (Col. 36-39, “Each shelf is of a wire form construction including a plurality of front-to-rear wires or rods 16 a joined to a plurality of transverse rods 16 b to form a grid”; See Fig. 8 showing the outer perimeter rods)
wherein each shelf of the plurality of shelves comprises coupling members (fig. 8, 34; col. 3, lines 42-44 and col. 4, lines 6-9) extending through corresponding slots of the first set of coupling slots and the second set of coupling slots to provide for removing each shelf from within the frame (Col. 4 lines 11-40) without tools,
wherein the plurality of shelves comprise at least one lower shelf (Col. 3 Lines 53-56, “in FIGS. 1 and 3, a bottom shelf 16 is stacked on bottom wall 24 of the wire form frame, and three additional shelves 16 are stacked on top of the bottom shelf.”), and
wherein at least one of the first side rod member or the second side rod member of the at least one lower shelf configured to provide for moving the at least one lower shelf laterally within the frame when in a substantially vertical position (Veltrop: Abstract and Col. 3 Lines 50-55 discloses shelves are moved from horizontal position to a generally vertical loading position. Col. 4 lines 1-10 discloses shelves utilize pivot pins 34 that slide within horizontal slots 38a-c).
While Veltrop does not state the pivot pins are inserted and removed from the slots with the need of tools which suggests tools are not required, still Veltrop does not explicitly state the language for the removal is “without tools” and “indented portion.”
Specifically, Veltrop does not expressly teach (italic emphasis),
to provide for removing each shelf from within the frame without tools, and
wherein at least one of the first side rod member or the second side rod member of the at least one lower shelf comprises an indented portion configured to provide for moving the at least one lower shelf laterally within the frame when in a substantially vertical position.
However, Laub is in the field of food product cooking basket, which specifically teaches (italic emphasis), to provide for removing each shelf from within the frame without tools (para. [0003], “The present invention is directed to solving these various problems, and providing a basket for holding food products in a unique movable shelf system, including a shelf that can be installed and removed “in the field” without requiring tools or special equipment.” [0030], “The removable shelf 1200 can also be installed and removed without requiring tools.” and [0037]), and
wherein at least one of the first side rod member or the second side rod member of the at least one lower shelf comprises an indented portion configured to provide for moving the at least one lower shelf laterally within the frame when in a substantially vertical position (para. [0037], “compressing the spring-steel wire 1224 and moving its second end 1228 into the open hook essentially “captures” the second end 128 in the hook.” Para. [0050], “spring-steel wire 1424 is formed of a material and is sized, shaped and arranged to permit the cantilevered portion of the spring 1432 beyond the fulcrum 1429 to be “compressed” by hand in order to urge the cantilevered portion 1432 in a direction 1433 that is toward the right side 1414 of the shelf.” Laub teaches the functional requirement of moving the shelf laterally to disengage the coupling members from the frame. While this lateral clearance is achieved by utilizing a flexible spring wire that temporarily deflects, providing an “indented portion” (a permanent inward recess or bend) on a rigid side rod member to achieve this exact same lateral clearance is a routine mechanical expedient and design choice).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the basket cooking apparatus of Veltrop to include the feature of shelves designed to be installed and removed without requiring tools or specifical equipment with idented portion for lateral disengagement as taught by Laub for the motivation of allowing restaurant employees to replace broken tiers/shelves without specialized repair equipment or welder which are traditionally required for wire fryer baskets (Laub, [0002]-[0003]). This reduces amount of downtime and saving cost. Further, the providing of indented portion on the die member is a predictable, well-known mechanical design choice to provide the necessary spatial clearance to allow the rod to shift further toward the center of the frame before the rod body strikes the frame wall. The indented portion allows a rigid shelf to be shifted laterally within the fixed dimensioned of the frame, achieving the exact same functional result of tool-less disengagement of the pints from the slots, as taught by Labu. The substitution of a static geometric clearance (an indent) for a dynamic geometric clearance (flexing spring) is a predictable use of prior art according to the established functions to achieve the known result of tool-less disassembly.
Claim 2, the combination of Veltrop and Laub make obvious of the basket of claim 1. Veltrop further discloses,
wherein the coupling members, the first set of coupling slots, and the second set of coupling slots are further configured to enable the plurality of shelves to pivot between the substantially horizontal position and the substantially vertical position (col. 4, lines 2-40).
Claim 3, the combination of Veltrop and Laub make obvious of the basket of claim 1. Veltrop further discloses,
wherein the plurality of shelves are configured for being pivoted from the substantially horizontal position to the substantially vertical position in top to bottom sequential order (col. 4, lines 11-23).
Claim 4, the combination of Veltrop and Laub make obvious of the basket of claim 1. Veltrop further discloses,
wherein the frame further comprises a bottom wall and a rear wall, each of the bottom wall and the rear wall attached to the first side wall and the second side wall (fig. 3, bottom wall 24; fig. 1, rear wall 28, both connected to the first side wall and the second side wall as shown in fig. 1).
Claim 5, the combination of Veltrop and Laub make obvious of the basket of claim 4. Veltrop further discloses,
wherein the rear wall defines a rear hook configured for coupling the basket to a support structure (fig. 2, hook 32).
Claim 6, the combination of Veltrop and Laub make obvious of the basket of claim 1. Veltrop further discloses,
wherein the first set of coupling slots and the second set of coupling slots are horizontally aligned to provide for positioning the plurality of shelves in the substantially horizontal position (fig. 4, fig. 5, the shelves being horizontal and parallel necessarily implies that the first set of coupling slots and the second set of coupling slots are horizontally aligned).
Claim 7, the combination of Veltrop and Laub make obvious of the basket of claim 1. Veltrop further discloses,
wherein one or more of the first set of coupling slots and the second set of coupling slots has a length configured to provide for moving a respective shelf forward when being pivoted from the substantially horizontal position to the substantially vertical position to allow the respective shelf to clear other shelves already being pivoted to their substantially vertical position (col. 4, lines 17-22. See fig. 11, arrows associated to slots 38b, 38c).
Claim 8, the combination of Veltrop and Laub make obvious of the basket of claim 1. Veltrop further discloses,
wherein the plurality of shelves comprise at the least one lower shelf and a top shelf (figs. 1, shelves 16, top and bottom. Col. 3 lines 53-55).
Claim 9, the combination of Veltrop and Laub make obvious of the basket of claim 8. Veltrop further discloses,
wherein each of the plurality of shelves comprise: opposing front rod member and rear rod member (Fig. 8); and
a plurality of individual longitudinal members, the plurality of individual longitudinal members spaced apart and attached to the front rod member and the rear rod member (Fig. 8; Col. 3 lines 5-41 teaching each shelf 16 includes a plurality of front-to-rear wires or rods 16a. These wires 16a are spaced apart to form a grid. These wires are joined to a plurality of transverse rods 16b. Therefore, the plurality of individual longitudinal members attached to the front rod member and the rear rod member).
Claim 14, the combination of Veltrop and Laub make obvious of the basket of claim 1. Veltrop further discloses,
wherein the frame is formed from thermally tolerant material (col. 2 lines 49-51).
Claim 15, the combination of Veltrop and Laub make obvious of the basket of claim 1. Veltrop further discloses,
wherein the first set of coupling slots are vertically separated from each other, and the second set of coupling slots are vertically separated from each other (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5).
Claim 16, the combination of Veltrop and Laub make obvious of the basket of claim 1. Veltrop further discloses,
wherein one or more of the first set of coupling slots and the second set of coupling slots comprise a depressed portion configured to receive at least a portion of the corresponding shelf when in the substantially vertical position (Abstract: teaches shelves are moved to a vertical loading position to allow food products to be loaded onto lower tiers without interference. Col. 4 lines 34-41: “FIG. 11, wire form basket 12 is loaded by first pivoting all shelves 16 upwardly to their generally vertical loading positions. All of the shelves can be pivoted upwardly simply by lifting on the bottom shelf. The shelves remain in their upper or loading positions of FIG. 11, because the shelves move “over-center” the pivots thereof as defined by pins 34.” Col. 4 lines 1-5 teaches pivot pins 34 slide within horizontal slots 38a-c).
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veltrop et al. (US6415934B1, hereinafter, “Veltrop”) in view of Laub et al (US20150313412A1, hereinafter, “Laub”) and further in view of Kunes et al (US20200068942A1, hereinafter, “Kunes”).
Claim 10, the combination of Veltrop and Laub make obvious of the basket of claim 8. Veltrop further teaches,
wherein each of the plurality of shelves comprise: opposing front rod member and rear rod member(Fig. 8, elements defining the perimeter of the shelf).
However, the combination fails to expressly teach,
a continuous rod member formed into a plurality of spaced apart longitudinal members and transverse end members therebetween the longitudinal members, wherein the transverse end members are attached to the front rod member and the rear rod member.
Nonetheless, Kunes is in the field of frying basket, specifically teaches,
a continuous rod member formed into a plurality of spaced apart longitudinal members and transverse end members therebetween the longitudinal members, wherein the transverse end members are attached to the front rod member and the rear rod member (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3; and para. [0025], [0028] and Claim 5 teaching grill is made from a single piece of grill wire bent to form… a series of open loops therebetween).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the basket cooking apparatus of Veltrop to include the feature of a continuous rod member formed into a plurality of spaced apart longitudinal members and transverse end members therebetween the longitudinal members, wherein the transverse end members are attached to the front rod member and the rear rod member as taught by Kunes for the motivation of preventing damages and maintaining structural durability as noted in Veltrop that the traditional wire baskets are often damaged because wire connection points detach, by utilizing a continuous rod member of Kunes eliminates the free ends of individual wires and reducing the number of total connection points, addressing the problem of weld failure and warping in high heat environment.
Claim 17, Veltrop discloses a replaceable shelf for a basket (Abstract and Fig. 1), the shelf comprising:
opposing front rod member and rear rod member; opposing first side rod member and second side rod member (Fig. 8, elements defining the perimeter of the shelf. Also see para. [0032]-[0033]),
wherein at least one of the first side rod member or the second side rod member of the at least one lower shelf configured to provide for moving the at least one lower shelf laterally within the frame when in a substantially vertical position (Veltrop: Abstract and Col. 3 Lines 50-55 discloses shelves are moved from horizontal position to a generally vertical loading position. Col. 4 lines 1-10 discloses shelves utilize pivot pins 34 that slide within horizontal slots 38a-c).
However, Veltrop fails to expressly teach (italic emphasis),
wherein at least one of the first side rod member or the second side rod member of the at least one lower shelf comprises an indented portion configured to provide for moving the at least one lower shelf laterally within the frame when in a substantially vertical position.
a continuous rod member formed into a plurality of spaced apart longitudinal members and transverse end members therebetween the longitudinal members, wherein the transverse end members are attached to the front rod member and the rear rod member.
However, Laub is in the field of food product cooking basket, which specifically teaches (italic emphasis),
wherein at least one of the first side rod member or the second side rod member of the at least one lower shelf comprises an indented portion configured to provide for moving the at least one lower shelf laterally within the frame when in a substantially vertical position (para. [0037], “compressing the spring-steel wire 1224 and moving its second end 1228 into the open hook essentially “captures” the second end 128 in the hook.” Para. [0050], “spring-steel wire 1424 is formed of a material and is sized, shaped and arranged to permit the cantilevered portion of the spring 1432 beyond the fulcrum 1429 to be “compressed” by hand in order to urge the cantilevered portion 1432 in a direction 1433 that is toward the right side 1414 of the shelf.” Laub teaches the functional requirement of moving the shelf laterally to disengage the coupling members from the frame. While this lateral clearance is achieved by utilizing a flexible spring wire that temporarily deflects, providing an “indented portion” (a permanent inward recess or bend) on a rigid side rod member to achieve this exact same lateral clearance is a routine mechanical expedient.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the basket cooking apparatus of Veltrop to include the feature of shelves designed to be installed and removed without requiring tools or specifical equipment with idented portion for lateral disengagement as taught by Laub for the motivation of allowing restaurant employees to replace broken tiers/shelves without specialized repair equipment or welder which are traditionally required for wire fryer baskets (Laub, [0002]-[0003]). This reduces amount of downtime and saving cost. Further, the providing of indented portion on the die member is a predictable, well-known mechanical design choice to provide the necessary spatial clearance to allow the rod to shift further toward the center of the frame before the rod body strikes the frame wall. The indented portion allows a rigid shelf to be shifted laterally within the fixed dimensioned of the frame, achieving the exact same functional result of tool-less disengagement of the pints from the slots, as taught by Labu. The substitution of a static geometric clearance (an indent) for a dynamic geometric clearance (flexing spring) is a predictable use of prior art according to the established functions to achieve the known result of tool-less disassembly.
Still, the combination fails to teach, a continuous rod member formed into a plurality of spaced apart longitudinal members and transverse end members therebetween the longitudinal members, wherein the transverse end members are attached to the front rod member and the rear rod member.
Nonetheless, Kunes is in the field of frying basket, specifically teaches,
a continuous rod member formed into a plurality of spaced apart longitudinal members and transverse end members therebetween the longitudinal members, wherein the transverse end members are attached to the front rod member and the rear rod member (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3; and para. [0025], [0028] and Claim 5 teaching grill is made from a single piece of grill wire bent to form… a series of open loops therebetween).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the basket cooking apparatus of Veltrop to include the feature of a continuous rod member formed into a plurality of spaced apart longitudinal members and transverse end members therebetween the longitudinal members, wherein the transverse end members are attached to the front rod member and the rear rod member as taught by Kunes for the motivation of preventing damages and maintaining structural durability as noted in Veltrop that the traditional wire baskets are often damaged because wire connection points detach, by utilizing a continuous rod member of Kunes eliminates the free ends of individual wires and reducing the number of total connection points, addressing the problem of weld failure and warping in high heat environment.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veltrop et al. (US6415934B1, hereinafter, “Veltrop”) in view of Laub et al (US20150313412A1, hereinafter, “Laub”) and further in view of Kunes et al (US20200068942A1, hereinafter, “Kunes”), and further in view of Crow (US9808118B2, hereinafter, “Crow”).
Claim 12, the combination of Veltrop, Laub, and Kunes make obvious of the basket of claim 10, further teaches,
wherein the coupling members of the top shelf (Veltrop Col. 3 lines 55-60 and Fig. 1 disclosing stack of shelves 16 including top shelf).
However, the combination fails to expressly teach loops and skewer mechanism. Specifically, the combination fails to teach,
comprises a first coupling loop extending from a first end of the first side rod member and a second coupling loop extending from a second end of the second end of the second side rod member, wherein the first coupling and the second coupling loop are configured for receiving a skewer member therethrough.
Nonetheless, Crow is in the field of cooking apparatus, which specifically teaches,
comprises a first coupling loop extending from a first end of the first side rod member and a second coupling loop extending from a second end of the second end of the second side rod member, wherein the first coupling and the second coupling loop are configured for receiving a skewer member therethrough (Fig. 6A, 6B and Col. 5 line 64 – Col. 6 line 6; and claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the basket cooking apparatus of Veltrop to replace the pivot pins of the top shelf with loops and skewer member taught by Crow for the motivation and benefit of utilizing Crow’s latch rod (skewer) passing through loops to provide more secure, positive mechanical lock that prevents the top shelf from accidently dislodging during vigorous operation.
Claim 13, the combination of Veltrop, Laub, Kunes, and Crow make obvious of the basket of claim 12, further teaches,
comprising a locking bracket mounted on at least one of the first side wall or the second side wall, the locking bracket defining a locking slot and configured for receiving the skewer member therethrough to provide for securing the top shelf within the frame of the basket (Crow Fig. 6A, 6B and Col. 5 line 64 – Col. 6 line 6; and claim 1). The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Veltrop with/and the teachings of Veltrop are presented in the examining of claim 12 and incorporated herein.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
The Applicant’s remarks are fully considered, however are found to be unpersuasive.
The Examiner asserts that the applicant’s arguments are directed towards amended claim limitations and are, therefore, considered moot. However, the Examiner has responded to the amended amendments, which the arguments are directed to, in the rejection above, thereby addressing the Applicant’s arguments. Although the arguments are deemed moot, the Examiner will rephrase the response below.
The Applicant argues “claim 1 as amended requires an "indented portion" that is part of a side rod member itself-not a separate spring wire element. The indented portion is a structural feature formed in the side rod member that provides clearance for lateral movement when the shelf is in a substantially vertical position. This is structurally and functionally distinct from Laub's separate spring-steel wire mechanism.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner respectfully notes the forming an article in one piece that was previously formed in two pieces is a matter of routine design choice and does not render a claim non-obvious. That is, set forth in MPEP 2144.04(V)(B) Making Integral, in re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965), “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”; In Laub teaches a side boundary of a shelf formed by a rigid rod and attached spring wire. The modifying of the shelf to form a single integral side rod member having an indented portion (spring wire) is mere consolidation of parts. The integral indented rod performs the exact same function as Laub’s two-piece spring assembly, which is to provide the necessary clearance between the edge of the shelf and the basket frame to allow the shelf to be shifted laterally within the fixed dimensioned of the frame with tool-less removal. The integral construction of two pieces elements or one single piece indented rod yields222 no unexpected results, the modification would be obvious.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
D. Pereira, A. Bozzato, P. Dario and G. Ciuti, "Towards Foodservice Robotics: A Taxonomy of Actions of Foodservice Workers and a Critical Review of Supportive Technology," in IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 1820-1858, July 2022.
Joshi et al. (US20150374119A1) is directed to a shelf for a modular shelving system includes a frame having a rectangular configuration. A front shelf member has a first end portion and an opposite second end portion. A rear shelf member is positioned parallel with the front shelf member and has a first end portion and an opposite second end portion. A first side shelf member is coupled to and extends between the front shelf member first end portion and the rear shelf member first end portion. A second side shelf member is coupled to and extends between the front shelf member second end portion and the rear shelf member second end portion. A cross-member extends between and is removably coupled to the first side shelf member and the second side shelf member. One or more support assemblies are removably coupled to the cross-member and reconfigurable to facilitate supporting a plurality of different dunnage.
Hohler et al. (US20200305646A1) is directed to a fryer and method for cooking food products is provided that automates the movement of baskets carrying the food products.
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 WENREN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5208. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Nathan C Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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.
/WENREN CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights