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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office Action in response to a non-final Office Action reply filed 12/30/25 in which claims 6-8 and 11-12 were amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3, line 2 recites “plate comprises said mounting element comprises two mounting arms provided above” which appears to be a misstatement of “plate comprises said mounting element which comprises two mounting arms provided above”.
Applicant is advised that should claim 11 be found allowable, claim 12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 706.03(k).
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6, 8-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Belt (US 2584536).
For claim 1, Belt teaches a burger press, comprising: a pressing plate (Fig. 1 – element 11); and a handle frame (element 13 and unlabeled U bar), wherein said handle frame is configured for being detachably mounted to said pressing plate (Figs 1-3), wherein said handle frame and said pressing plate are capable of being detached from each other for the intended use of transportation.
For claim 6, Belt teaches said handle frame comprises an operation handle (element 13) and a bottom attachment piece (U bar), wherein said operation handle and said bottom attachment piece are provided at opposite sides of said handle frame, wherein said bottom attachment piece is arranged for being detachably mounted to the pressing plate (Figs 1-3).
For claim 8, Belt teaches said burger press comprises a plurality of said pressing plates for detachably coupling with the same handle frame, wherein said plurality of pressing plates comprise different smashing patterns (col 2 ln 55 to col 3 ln 4 describes one smashing pattern and col 4 lns 4-8 describes another smashing pattern).
For claim 9, Belt teaches said burger press comprises a receiving base which comprise a bottom wall (Fig. 3 - element 17) and a surrounding wall (element 16) extended from said bottom wall to define a receiving chamber to allow said pressing plate to be fitted into said receiving chamber to achieve pressing operation.
For claims 11-12, Belt teaches said pressing plate and said handle frame are made of metal (col 2 lns 45-47).
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 of this title, 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 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.
Claims 2-5, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belt (US 2584536).
Belt teaches the invention as discussed above.
For claim 2, Belt teaches said pressing plate comprises a pressing body comprising a smashing pattern (col 2 ln 55 to col 3 ln 4) at a bottom thereof and a mounting element (unlabeled raised central portion with two screw holes), wherein said handle frame comprises an operation handle (element 13). Though Belt does not teach one or more connector arms, wherein said one or more connector arms are configured for being detachably mounted to said mounting element, Belt does teach the U bar being detachably mounted to said mounting element (see citations above) and making elements of a device (such as arms of a U bar) integral or separable is considered to be an obvious design choice and does not render an invention patentable. Please see In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) and MPEP 2144.04(V) (B & C) for further details.
For claims 3-4, further regarding one or more connector arms taught as obvious by Belt above, the arms of the U bar could be further separated into two mounting arms provided above said pressing body, wherein said handle frame comprises two said connector arms extended from said operation handle, wherein said two connector arms are configured for being respectively detachably mounted to said two mounting arms; and said two mounting arms would be integrally protruded from said pressing body of said pressing plate.
For claim 5, further regarding one or more mounting arms taught as obvious by Belt above, the U bar could be further separated into a mounting element comprising a fixing piece which is attached on said pressing body, wherein said two mounting arms are integrally protruded from two ends of said fixing piece.
For claim 7, further regarding one or more connector arms taught as obvious by Belt above, said handle frame would comprise two connector arms extended from two ends of said operation handle (element 13), said bottom attachment piece (U bar) would be extended between said two connector arms and configured for being detachably mounted to said pressing plate (Figs 1-3) and it would be well known to substitute one or more bolt-nut connectors for the screws shown in Figs 1-3.
For claim 10, it would be well known to magnetically attract such pressing plate and handle frame metal parts.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belt (US 2584536) in view of Delaney et al (GB 2355173).
Belt teaches the invention as discussed above.
Belt does not teach said smashing pattern has a plurality of grooves.
However, in the same field of endeavor pertaining to an apparatus and method for preparing a burger pattie, Delaney et al teach said smashing pattern has a plurality of grooves (Fig. 2, Examiner interprets areas between projections 20 as grooves).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Delaney et al with those of Belt by using Delaney et al’s smashing pattern in order to render all of the pattie accessible for heating and assist in maintaining the pattie flat during cooking to achieve even and efficient cooling as suggested by Delaney et al (Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/30/25 were fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Belt merely teaches a permanently attached handle, not a handle frame that is configured to be detachably mounted to the pressing plate.
Examiner, however, points out that Belt’s handle is detachably mounted to the pressing plate by removing the screws illustrated in Figs 1-3.
Applicant also asserts that Belt does not disclose nor inherently teach detachment of components for transportation.
Examiner, however, points out that Belt does not have to explicitly teach detachment of components for transportation because that is intended use and the mold of Belt would be capable of detachment of components for transportation.
Applicant asserts too that Belt teaches the different smashing patterns, but Belt does not teach the multiple pressing plates with different smashing patterns for detachably coupling with the same handle frame.
Examiner, however, points out that it is implied that Belt’s different smashing patterns would work with the same handle frame as Belt teaches just the one handle frame.
Applicant also asserts that while Belt may disclose a pressing surface having a smashing pattern, Belt does not teach or suggest that the pressing plate includes a mounting element for detachable engagement with a handle frame.
Examiner, however, points out that the unlabeled raised central portion with two screw holes shown in Figs 1-3 of Belt shows that the pressing plate includes a mounting element for detachable engagement with a handle frame.
Applicant also asserts that the Examiner asserts that making elements of a device integral or separable is considered an obvious design choice and does not render the invention patentable, but the Examiner's position oversimplifies the claimed invention and is inapplicable to the present facts, and while it is true that in some circumstances integration versus separation of components may constitute a design choice, such a conclusion is only proper when the claimed configuration performs the same function in the same way and achieves the same result as the prior art, and that is not the case here.
Examiner, however, points out that the separated components provide the same function in the same way as the integral components which is providing a handle to the pressing plate.
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 extension fee 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 JAMES SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-7007. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached on 571-270-5516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES SANDERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743