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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/5/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In both claims, after “handle” delete “is comprised of” and amend to instead recite “comprises” to place the claims in better form.
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.
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.
Claims 2, 4, 9 and 11-13 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.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the body is comprised of a stock pot shape…or a Dutch oven shape” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear whether or not the alternatives should be treated as a Markush grouping (see MPEP 2117 I.) The claim appears to indicate that the shape of the body is selected from a closed group of alternatives i.e., “a stock pot shape…or a Dutch oven shape”. However, the claim recites the transitional phrase “comprised of”, which indicates an open list of alternatives. MPEP 2173.05(h) states “If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim.” The rejection can be overcome by amending the claim to instead recite “wherein the body shape is selected from the group consisting of a stock pot shape…or a Dutch oven shape.” An alternatively sufficient amendment is “wherein the body shape is a stock pot shape…or a Dutch oven shape.”
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the material is comprised of a stainless steel…” renders the claim indefinite for the same reasons stated for claim 2 above. The rejection can be similarly overcome by amending the claim to instead recite e.g., “wherein the material is a stainless glass…”
Regarding claim 9, the antecedent of “the handle” is ambiguous. The rejection can be overcome by specifying which of the handles (first, second, or both) in claim 8 are being referred to.
Regarding claim 11, “the handle” renders the claim indefinite for the same reason stated for claim 9 above, and can be similarly overcome by amending in the same manner.
Claims 12-13 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Graybeal et al. (US 2020/0187699 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Graybeal et al. teaches a divided cookware device 100 comprising a body 101/102 comprised of an interior surface and a divider wall 103, and a handle attached to the body (figures 1-3; paragraphs 6 and 20-21).
Regarding claim 2, the body is a skillet shape (figure 1; paragraph 20).
Regarding claims 3-4, the body is made form steel or iron (paragraph 20).
Regarding claims 5-6, the interior surface of the body and the exterior surface of the divider wall are formed from non-stick material (figures 2-3; paragraphs 22-23). The non-stick material is construed to be a type of “coating” since it covers a cooking surface that is made from a different material i.e., steel or iron as stated for claim 1. It is noted that while the non-stick coating is disclosed to be an “embodiment” of the invention, it is understood that the device can be manufactured with the non-stick material and therefore exist without modification to the embodiment of figure 1 as cited for claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the divider wall and body form a food area (paragraph 19).
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.
Claims 8-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graybeal et al. in view of Lanteri, Jr. (US 2023/0087271 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Graybeal et al. teaches a divided cookware comprising a body comprised of an interior surface and a divider wall 103, a first handle attached to the body, and a lid 401 comprising a second handle 402 (figure 4; paragraphs 6 and 24).
Graybeal et al. does not teach the first handle is attached to the body via a hinge.
Lanteri, Jr. teaches a frying pan device with an adjustable handle (abstract) the handle 120 comprising a hinge member 154 (figure 2; paragraph 20), where the hinge allows the handle to be placed into a vertical position to minimize space occupied during storage or washing in a sink or dishwasher (paragraphs 9 and 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the first handle of Graybeal et al. to include a hinge since the reference does not particularly limit the handle structure/material, in order to similarly minimize space for storage and washing, and therefore to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP 2143 I.(A).
Regarding claim 9, Graybeal et al. does not teach the handle is comprised of a non-conductive material.
Lanteri, Jr. teaches the handle is manufactured from a rigid plastic or wood material (paragraph 8), understood to be non-conductive.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the handle of Graybeal et al. to be a non-conductive material since the reference does not particularly limit the handle structure/material, since such materials are known to be used for cookware handles, and in order to minimize heat transfer to the handle during use as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 10, the combination applied to claim 8 teaches a hinge, where Lanteri, Jr. teaches the hinge can be a locking hinge (paragraph 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the hinge to be a locking hinge in order to allow the handle to be secured in the horizontal or vertical position, thereby minimizing damage and/or injury from unintentional handle movement.
Regarding claims 11-12, the combination applied to claim 9 teaches the handle is comprised of a non-conductive material. The same combination is applied to claims 11-12 and would have been obvious for the same reasons. The material is construed to be a type of “grip” since the second body member 140 (grip) fits over the main body member 130 of the handle (figure 2; paragraphs 23-24).
Regarding claim 13, the combination applied to claim 11 does not teach the grip is comprised of a “non-slip material”.
Lanteri, Jr. further teaches the handle 140 can be textured for grip purposes (paragraph 21), where the grip is therefore construed to be a “non-slip material”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the grip to be a non-slip material in order to facilitate gripping as is known in the art, thereby minimizing risk of the device slipping from a user’s hand, and to provide a more ergonomic handle.
Regarding claim 14, Graybeal et al. teaches the lid 401 is transparent and made for glass (figure 4; paragraph 24).
Regarding claims 16-17, Graybeal et al. does not teach the second handle is comprised of a non-conductive, non-slip material.
The combinations applied to claims 12-13 teaches a non-conductive material such as plastic or wood, and applying texture to the grip to form a non-slip material. The same combinations are applied to claims 16-17 and would have been obvious for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 18-19, the combination applied to claim 13 teaches applying texture to a handle to facilitate gripping. The same modification is applied to the first and second handles of Graybeal et al., and would have been obvious for the same reasons.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graybeal et al. in view of Lanteri, Jr. as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Monk (US 2016/0183729 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Graybeal et al. does not teach the lid is comprised of an opening, interpreted in view of the disclosure to be an aperture formed on the lid (figure 1; paragraph 39).
Monk teaches a cookware comprising a lid 30, the lid comprising a vent 34 to allow for removal of steam during cooking (figure 1A; paragraph 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the lid of Graybeal et al. to include an opening in order to similarly allow steam to vent during use, thereby minimizing risk of injury to the user due to steam buildup, and since such structures are well-known in the art for lids of cooking vessels.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Garza (US 2017/0245684 A1) teaches a divided cookware device comprising a body comprised of an interior surface and a divider wall 2, and a handle 3 attached to the body (figure 1).
Schroeder et al. (US 2014/0131361 A1) teaches a divided cookware device comprising a body comprised of an interior surface and a divider wall 212, and a handle 300 attached to the body (figure 1).
Fortkamp (US 2011/0017750 A1) teaches a divided cookware device comprising a body comprised of an interior surface and a divider wall 1A3, and a handle 1B attached to the body (figure 1).
Ason (US 6,189,722 B1) teaches a divided cookware device comprising a body comprised of an interior surface and a divider wall 16, and a handle 14 attached to the body (figure 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0338. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571)-270-3475. 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.
/BRYAN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1792