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 .
Notice of Amendment
In response to the amendments filed May 26, 2026, amended claims 1, 5, 7-8, 12-18 are acknowledged. It is noted claims 7-8 and 19-20 do not have proper claim identifiers. In view of the claim amendments, the following new and reiterated grounds of rejection are set forth:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
GROUND 1: Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “said tubular elements being connected to one another so that said first walls describe, as a whole and at least partially, a closed path delimiting, at least partially, a portion of space in said frame” which us not supported by the drawings or specification. The word “connected”, by definition means “united, joined, or linked” (see https://www.dictionary.com/browse/connected), which requires one or more tubular elements joined together via a weld, adhesive or equivalent connecting component. Paras 0090 and 0094-0095 provide support for the limitation “connected to one another” by stating:
[0091] Sheet 2 is supported by a frame 4 comprising one or more metal tubular elements, each of which preferably made of AISI 304 steel. Namely, frame 4 preferably comprises four preferably rectilinear tubular elements 5, 6, 7 and 8 connected to one another at the respective ends preferably so as to form, overall, a frame which is substantially shaped like the perimeter of a rectangle.
[0094] Given that the tubular elements 5, 6, 7 and 8 are connected to one another at the respective ends preferably to form, overall, a frame which substantially is shaped like the perimeter of a rectangle, the tubular elements 5, 6, 7 and 8 are connected to one another so that wall 9 of each of the tubular elements 5, 6, 7, and 8 corresponding to a long side of the aforesaid rectangle as the perimeter of which the cross section of said tubular element 5, 6, 7 or 8 is substantially shaped and facing the inside of frame 4, is consecutively connected to the walls 9 of the two of the three remaining tubular elements, respectively, between which said tubular element 5, 6, 7 or 8 is interposed.
[0095] Incidentally, given that the tubular elements 5, 6, 7 and 8 are connected to one another at the respective ends preferably so as to form, overall, a frame which is substantially shaped like the perimeter of a rectangle, the aforesaid closed path described by the four walls 9 of the tubular elements 5, 6, 7 and 8 preferably is substantially rectangular.
(emphasis added)
There is no connecting component illustrated and it is unclear how the ends of tubular elements 5, 6, 7, 8 are “connected to one another”. Paras 0091 and 0094 merely state that the ends are, in fact, connected to one another without providing sufficient disclosure to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. It appears from the disclosure that the tubular elements are not directly connected to one another, but rather that metal bars 13 are used to indirectly connect the tubular elements to one another via metal sheet 2. Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
Claims 2-20 are rejected as being necessarily dependent upon claim 1.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
GROUND 2: Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
The claims contain numerous limitations which lead to confusion and lack clarity in view of the specification. For clarity, claims are listed in their entirety with the Examiner’s highlighted remarks provided in instances wherein each claim is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention:
Claim 1. A baking tray for baking food, said tray comprising:
a metal sheet which is at least partially flat and terminates in an edge;
a frame for supporting said sheet,
said frame comprising metal tubular elements, each of which including a first wall extending in length, said tubular elements being connected to one another so that said first walls describe, as a whole and at least partially, a closed path delimiting, at least partially, a portion of space in said frame;
connecting means of said sheet, positioned at said edge, and connecting said sheet to said frame,
wherein said sheet is accommodated in said portion of space at least at said edge so as to be at least partially interposed between said tubular elements,
said sheet, at said edge, being folded over itself so as to comprise an upper strip and a lower strip, which are at least partially flat, at least partially mutually opposite and at least partially at a given distance from each other, [It is unclear how the sheet can be folded over itself at an edge 3, when the edge is claimed to delimit the sheet. The word “edge”, by definition means “a line or border at which a surface terminates” (see https://www.dictionary.com/browse/edge). Thus, it is unclear how a surface which terminates, can be folded upon itself as claimed, since it is the end of the sheet itself.]
said sheet being accommodated in said portion of space at, at least partially, said lower strip, with the assembly consisting of said upper strip, said lower strip and a fold which connects the upper strip and the lower strip mutually, at least partially facing said portion of space on a side of a concavity thereof, [There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the assembly". Furthermore, due to the nature of the claim, and the numerous different components being claimed, it is unclear which component is being referred to with regard to the term “thereof”. The concavity of the “assembly”, the “upper strip”, the “lower strip” or the “fold”. It is also unclear how the fold may face a side of concavity, if it is the fold itself that is defining the side of concavity.]
said connecting means comprising, attached to each of said tubular elements, a metal bar
including at least a second wall, which is at least partially flat, extending in length and comprising a first edge and a second edge, which is opposite to said first edge, each of said first and second edges extending in length substantially in the same direction in which said second wall extends in length, [it is unclear how an “edge” can extend with any amount of length, in view of the definition of an edge provided above. The edge is the termination of the wall, and thus does not and cannot extend with any length as claimed.]
and connected, by one or more welds, to said tubular element so that said second wall of said bar is:
accommodated in said portion of space so as to be interposed between said tubular elements,
arranged transversely to said first wall of said tubular element to which said bar is connected and
opposite to said first wall of said tubular element to which said bar is connected, at least at said first edge,
for each of said bars, said second wall, at said second edge, being folded over itself so as to comprise an upper strip and a lower strip, which are at least partially flat and at least partially mutually opposite and at least partially at a given distance from each other, [Similar to the remarks provided above, it is unclear how the wall can be folded over itself at an edge 18, when the edge by definition is the terminating border of wall 14.]
for each of said bars, collectively, consisting of said upper strip of said second wall of said bar, of said lower strip of said second wall of said bar, and of a fold which mutually connects the upper strip of the second wall of the bar and the lower strip of the second wall of the bar them, facing, on the side of the concavity thereof, said first wall of said tubular element to which said bar is connected, [There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the concavity". Furthermore, due to the nature of the claim, and the numerous different components being claimed, it is unclear which component is being referred to with regard to the term “thereof”. The concavity of the “upper strip”, the “lower strip” or the “fold”. It is also unclear how the fold may face a side of concavity, if it is the fold itself that is defining the side of concavity.]
for each of said tubular elements:
said lower strip of said sheet being at least partially interposed between said upper and lower strips of said second wall of said bar connected to said tubular element,
with said edge of said sheet opposite to said fold which mutually connects said upper and lower strips of said second wall of said bar connected to said tubular element,
so that said upper and lower strips of said second wall of said bar connected to said tubular element are at least partially mutually opposite with the at least partial interposition of said lower strip of said sheet, and
said upper strip of said second wall of said bar connected to said tubular element being at least partially interposed between said upper and lower strips of said sheet,
so that said upper and lower strips of said sheet are at least partially mutually opposite with the at least partial interposition of said upper strip of said second wall of said bar connected to said tubular element.
Appropriate clarification and correction is required. Claims 2-20 are rejected as being necessarily dependent upon claim 1.
Claims 5 and 12 both recite, in part:
“…wherein said sheet lies within said portion of space at least at:
said upper strip of said sheet,
a first portion of said lower strip of said sheet, which is consecutive to said upper strip of said sheet and
said fold which mutually connects said upper and lower strips of said sheet, for each of said tubular elements, said lower strip of said sheet being interposed between said upper and lower strips of said second wall of said bar connected to said tubular element, at, at least partially, a second portion of said lower strip of said sheet including said edge of said sheet…” [The claims appear to be directed to the embodiment illustrated in Fig. 2 wherein the “sheet lies within said portion of space” however the claims also include “an upper strip 10 of said sheet”, “a first portion 11a of lower strip” and “a second portion 11b of lower strip” which are shown in Figure 4. The embodiment of Figure 4 illustrates sheet 2 positioned partially outside the portion of space, whereas Figure 2 illustrates sheet 2 positioned entirely within the portion of space]
Claims 5 and 12 both recite, in part:
“the assembly consisting of said upper strip of said sheet, said lower strip of said sheet and said fold which mutually connects the upper strip of said sheet and the lower strip of the sheet facing said portion of space on the side of the concavity thereof at least at said second portion of said lower strip of said sheet and, at least partially, of said third portion of said lower strip of said sheet, [Due to the nature of the claim, and the numerous different components being claimed, it is unclear which component is being referred to with regard to the term “thereof”. The concavity of the “assembly”, the “upper strip”, the “lower strip” or the “fold”. It is also unclear how the fold may face a side of concavity, if it is the fold itself that is defining the side of concavity.]
Appropriate clarification and correction is required. Claims 6-8 and 17-18 are rejected as being necessarily dependent upon claim 5.
Claims 7 and 13-17 recite, in part:
“…wherein each of said tubular elements has a cross section shaped as a rectangle, with a side of said rectangle corresponding to said first wall of said tubular element,
for each of said tubular elements, said bar connected to said tubular element having a substantially “L”-shaped cross section with an arm of said L corresponding to said second wall of said first bar and being opposite and connected, [The tubular elements are claimed to have both a rectangular cross section and a substantially “L”-shaped cross section which leads to confusion as what type of cross-section the tubular members actually have. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "said first bar".]
Appropriate clarification and correction is required. Claims 8 and 18 are rejected as being necessarily dependent upon claims 7 and 17, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and amendments filed May 26, 2026, have been fully considered and will be addressed as follows with respect to the previously presented claim interpretations and rejections:
Drawings:
The amended drawings filed May 26, 2026 have been reviewed and accepted. The objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation:
As set forth in the Office Action mailed February 27, 2026, the claim limitation “connecting means” (see claim 1) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, and is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (see para 0007) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The Applicant did not comment on the interpretation of the claims.
GROUND 1 (112a rejection):
Applicant remarks, the limitations wherein “the tubular elements connected to one another” could mean directly connected to one another (i.e. a ‘direct connection’), connected to one another via the bars (i.e. an ‘indirect connection’), or both. Further stating, in view of the alternate interpretations of the term “connected to one another”, the specification complies with the written description requirement and provides support for the tubular elements being “connected to one another”.
Examiner agrees that support is provided for an “indirect connection” between the tubular elements, wherein metal bars 13 are used to indirectly connect the tubular elements to one another via metal sheet 2. However, support is not provided for a “direct connection” which the specification appears to disclose in paras 0091 and 0094-0095 (see rejection above). As claimed and emphasized in Applicant’s remarks filed 5/26/26, the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) of the phrase “tubular elements connected to one another”, could mean the tubular elements are directly or indirectly connected to one another. Thus, the specification requires support for both direct and indirect connections of the tubular elements. As rejected and discussed above, the specification fails to comply with the written description requirement. Examiner suggests to amend the claim lanague, to avoid confusion and to reflect the indirect connection between the tubular elements. For example:
“…said tubular elements connected to one another via connecting means of said sheet so that said first walls describe, as a whole and at least partially, a closed path delimiting, at least partially, a portion of space in said frame…”
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is maintained.
GROUND 2 (112b rejections):
In view of GROUND 2, Applicant remarks:
“As regards the indefiniteness rejection under 35 USC 112(b), the claims are amended to correct various informalities helpfully noted by the Examiner and are now believed to be suitably definite.”
The claims contained numerous limitations which led to confusion and a lack clarity in view of the specification. While some of these limitations were addressed and properly corrected, many were not. The instances wherein each claim remains to be indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention will be addressed as follows:
Claim 1 recites, in part, “said sheet, at said edge, being folded over itself so as to comprise an upper strip and a lower strip, which are at least partially flat, at least partially mutually opposite and at least partially at a given distance from each other” which leads to confusion and it is unclear how the sheet can be folded over itself at an edge 3. The word “edge”, by definition means “a line or border at which a surface terminates” (see https://www.dictionary.com/browse/edge). Thus, it is unclear how a surface which terminates, can be folded upon itself as claimed, since it is the end of the sheet itself. As seen in annotated Fig. 2., sheet 2 is clearly folded at a spaced distance from edge 3:
PNG
media_image1.png
307
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner suggests to amend the claim lanague, to avoid confusion, by stating the sheet is folded over itself at “an edge portion” or “near said edge”.
Claim 1 recites, in part, “said sheet being accommodated in said portion of space at, at least partially, said lower strip, with the assembly consisting of said upper strip, said lower strip and a fold which connects the upper strip and the lower strip mutually, at least partially facing said portion of space on a side of a concavity thereof” which leads to confusion and it is unclear which component is being referred to with regard to the term “thereof”. The concavity of the “assembly”, the “upper strip”, the “lower strip” or the “fold”. Furthermore, it is unclear how the fold may face a side of concavity, if it is the fold itself that is defining the side of concavity.
Claim 1 recites, in part, “including at least a second wall (14), which is at least partially flat, extending in length and comprising a first edge (15) and a second edge (18), which is opposite to said first edge, each of said first and second edges extending in length substantially in the same direction in which said second wall extends in length”, which leads to confusion and it is unclear as to what directions edges 15 and 18 “extend” and how the direction can be the same direction in which wall 14 extends. As seen in annotated Fig. 2 below, edges 15 and 18 can only extend “vertically”. The “edge” of the metal bar, by definition, is the line or border at which the metal bar terminates. Thus, it cannot extend along a “horizontal” direction, and be “in the same direction in which said second wall extends in length” as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
307
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 recites, in part, “for each of said bars, said second wall, at said second edge, being folded over itself so as to comprise an upper strip and a lower strip, which are at least partially flat and at least partially mutually opposite and at least partially at a given distance from each other” and is rejected under the same rationale provided above with regard to a fold provided in sheet 2. As seen in Fig. 2, metal bar 13 is clearly folded at a spaced distance from edge 18.
Claim 1 recites, in part, “for each of said bars, collectively, consisting of said upper strip of said second wall of said bar, of said lower strip of said second wall of said bar, and of a fold which mutually connects the upper strip of the second wall of the bar and the lower strip of the second wall of the bar them, facing, on the side of the concavity thereof, said first wall of said tubular element to which said bar is connected” and is rejected under the same rationale provided above with regard to the lack of clarity when using the term “thereof” with regard to the concavity being claimed.
Claims 5 and 12 both recite, in part: “wherein said sheet lies within said portion of space at least at: said upper strip of said sheet, a first portion of said lower strip of said sheet, which is consecutive to said upper strip of said sheet and said fold which mutually connects said upper and lower strips of said sheet, for each of said tubular elements, said lower strip of said sheet being interposed between said upper and lower strips of said second wall of said bar connected to said tubular element, at, at least partially, a second portion of said lower strip of said sheet including said edge of said sheet” which leads to confusion as it appears the distinct embodiments shown in Figures 2 and 4 are being combined in a single claim. That is, claims 5 and 12 appear to be directed to the embodiment illustrated in Fig. 2 wherein the “sheet lies within said portion of space” however the claims also include “an upper strip 10 of said sheet”, “a first portion 11a of lower strip” and “a second portion 11b of lower strip” which are shown in Figure 4. The embodiment of Figure 4 illustrates sheet 2 positioned partially outside the portion of space, whereas Figure 2 illustrates sheet 2 positioned entirely within the portion of space. Thus, it is unclear which embodiment the Applicant is intending to claim within claims 5 and 12.
Claims 5 and 12 both recite, in part: “the assembly consisting of said upper strip of said sheet, said lower strip of said sheet and said fold which mutually connects the upper strip of said sheet and the lower strip of the sheet facing said portion of space on the side of the concavity thereof at least at said second portion of said lower strip of said sheet and, at least partially, of said third portion of said lower strip of said sheet” which leads to confusion and it is unclear which component is being referred to with regard to the term “thereof”. The concavity of the “assembly”, the “upper strip”, the “lower strip” or the “fold”. Furthermore, it is unclear how the fold may face a side of concavity, if it is the fold itself that is defining the side of concavity.
Claims 7 and 13-17 recite, in part “…wherein each of said tubular elements has a cross section shaped as a rectangle, with a side of said rectangle corresponding to said first wall of said tubular element, for each of said tubular elements, said bar connected to said tubular element having a substantially “L”-shaped cross section with an arm of said L corresponding to said second wall of said first bar and being opposite and connected” which leads to confusion if the tubular elements have a rectangular cross section or a substantially “L”-shaped cross section. It appears proper punctuation would eliminate any confusion, and clarify the Applicant intends to the bar to have a “L”-shaped cross section, not the tubular element.
Appropriate clarification and correction is required. Claims 8 and 18 are rejected as being necessarily dependent upon claims 7 and 17, respectively.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention is maintained.
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 MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA whose telephone number is (571)272-6086. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7AM--3PM.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
5/29/26
Prosecution Insights