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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 7 requires that “the meal stackable plate is arranged are on an outer periphery of the table-top subsystem” and should require “the meal stackable plate is arranged on an outer periphery of the table-top subsystem”. 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 1-18 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.
Claim 1 requires “…the plurality of stackable plates comprise one or more intermediate stackable plates and a meal stackable plate, the plurality of stackable plates are arranged around an outer periphery of the center plate along an outward direction and the meal stackable plate is arranged are on an outer periphery of the table-top subsystem” the former clause defines the meal stackable plate as part of the plurality of stackable plates whereas the latter clause suggests that the plurality of stackable plates and meal stackable plate are different sets of plates. For the purposes of examination, the meal stackable plate is interpreted to be part of the plurality of stackable plates.
Claim 8 discloses “the plurality of intermediate stackable plates”, whereas claim 1 from which claim 8 directly depends requires “one or more intermediate stackable plates”. Since claim 1 allows for one intermediate stackable plate claim 8 cannot require “the plurality of stackable plates” and should require “one or more intermediate stackable plates”.
Claims 2-7 and 9-18 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
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, 3-4, 8, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Demou et. al (CN 107125947 A).
With respect to claim 1 Demou discloses a modular table system, comprising: a tabletop subsystem configured to receive one or more cooking devices1, the table-top subsystem comprising a center plate [reference character 4] and a plurality of stackable plates [reference characters 7 and 1], wherein the plurality of stackable plates comprise one or more intermediate stackable plates [reference character 7] and a meal stackable plate [reference character 1], the plurality of stackable plates are arranged around an outer periphery of the center plate along an outward direction and the meal stackable plate is arranged are on an outer periphery of the table- top subsystem; and a support subsystem [reference character 9] arranged beneath the tabletop subsystem.
With respect to claim 3 Demou discloses that the meal stackable plate is larger in size than a largest intermediate stackable plate and is disposed beneath the one or more intermediate stackable plates; and the meal stackable plate is configured to accommodate at least one of eating utensils or meals [see Fig. 1].
With respect to claim 4 Demou discloses that the center plate is smaller in size than a smallest intermediate stackable plate and is disposed at least one of above or in a central position of the one or more intermediate stackable plates; and the center plate is configured to hold cooking ingredients [see Fig. 1, also element 5 is referred to as a “hotpot”].
With respect to claim 8 Demou discloses the plurality of intermediate stackable plates are partitioned, each partition comprising one or more segments disposed in a circumferential direction, each of the segments is configured to receive a different type of cooking device. The examiner notes that because the applicant has not claimed any portioning structure the claimed partitioning is interpreted as arbitrary where a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a user could arbitrarily partition the stackable plate and place a cooking device (e.g. a kettle or induction stove) on the partition, thereby meeting the functional limitations of the claims.
With respect to claim 17 Demou discloses that the table-top subsystem defines a circular shape [see Fig. 1].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being by Hsu et. al (US 7,832,390 B2).
With respect to claim 19 Hsu discloses a table-top subsystem for a modular table system [see Fig. 8], comprising: one or more irremovable cooking devices [burners, see annotated Fig. below and grill, reference character 68] coupled to the table-top subsystem; a plurality of cavities [see annotated Fig. below] disposed on a top surface of the table-top subsystem, each cavity of the plurality of cavities configured to receive a removable cooking device [reference character 88], each cavity comprising at least one of: a combustible fluid source [reference character 20] configured to be fluidly coupled to the removable cooking device, wherein the one or more irremovable cooking devices are different types of cooking devices than the plurality of removable cooking devices [the burners 88 support a wok grill whereas the longitudinal irremovable burners supports a grill plate].
PNG
media_image1.png
565
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Demou et. al (CN 107125947 A).
With respect to claim 20 Demou discloses a table-top system, comprising: a center plate [reference character 4], and a plurality of stackable plates [reference characters 7 and 1] comprising one or more intermediate stackable plates [reference character 7] arranged around an outer periphery of the center plate and a meal stackable plate [reference character 1] arranged around a periphery of the intermediate stackable plates, wherein the one or more intermediate stackable plates are configured to accommodate one or more cooking devices2, and wherein the meal stackable plate provides space for dining.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demou et. al (CN 107125947 A) in view of Khiabani (US 2016/0227922 A1).
With respect to claim 2 Demou discloses that at least one of the center plate or the intermediate stackable plates is electrically rotatable [element 7 is referred to as a “turntable”, also see Fig. 5] via an electric motor [reference character 722] or manually rotatable in a circumferential direction.
Demou does not disclose that each of the intermediate stackable plates and the meal stackable plate is formed by removably coupling a plurality of sub-plate segments in the circumferential direction.
Khiabani discloses a circular table where the circular surface is partitioned into two or more parts [reference character 32] which allows the surface to be collapsed into the base [reference character 14, see Fig. 10] in order to allow for space saving and storage, each partition of the second stackable plate is configured to accommodate one or more of the cooking devices3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the table taught by Demou and Sun by forming the second stackable plate such that it is partitioned into two or more parts, as taught by Khiabani, in order to allow the surface to be collapsed into the base for space saving and storage.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demou et. al (CN 107125947 A) in view of Sun (CN 109419162 A) and further in view of Khiabani (US 2016/0227922 A1).
With respect to claim 5 Demou does not disclose that the plurality of intermediate stackable plates comprise a first stackable plate and a second stackable plate sequentially nested onto each other along an outward direction of the center plate.
Sun discloses a turntable system for a table that includes two three turntable plates [reference characters 2-4].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to provide multiple turntable plates, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Additionally, Demou does not disclose that the second stackable plate is partitioned into two or more parts, each partition of the second stackable plate is configured to accommodate one or more of the cooking devices.
Khiabani discloses a circular table where the circular surface is partitioned into two or more parts [reference character 32] which allows the surface to be collapsed into the base [reference character 14, see Fig. 10] in order to allow for space saving and storage, each partition of the second stackable plate is configured to accommodate one or more of the cooking devices4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the table taught by Demou and Sun by forming the second stackable plate such that it is partitioned into two or more parts, as taught by Khiabani, in order to allow the surface to be collapsed into the base for space saving and storage.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demou et. al (CN 107125947 A) in view of Li et. al (CN 105361434 A).
With respect to claim 9 Demou does not disclose that the center plate and the one or more intermediate stackable plates include means for adjusting their heights in a vertical direction.
Li discloses a rotary dining table that includes a center and intermediate plate [reference characters 11 and 8 in Fig. 1], a motor [reference character 5], and a lifter [reference character 9] which allows for the adjustment of the height of the intermediate and center table.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the table taught by Demou by including the lifter allowing the intermediate and center plate to be lifted, as taught by Li, in order to allow the height to be adjusted on the basis of the height of the users in order to make the experience more comfortable.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demou et. al (CN 107125947 A) in view of Sun (CN 109419162 A) and further in view of Khiabani (US 2016/0227922 A1) and further in view of Li et. al (CN 105361434 A).
With respect to claim 10 Demou discloses that the one or more cooking devices being irremovably coupled to the table-top subsystem [see Fig. 1].
The combination of Demou, Sun, and Khiabani do not disclose that the one or more cooking devices are flush with a top surface of the table-top subsystem.
Li discloses a rotary dining table that includes a center and intermediate plate [reference characters 11 and 8 in Fig. 1], a motor [reference character 5], and a lifter [reference character 9] which allows for the adjustment of the height of the intermediate and center table.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the table taught by Demou by including the lifter allowing the intermediate and center plate to be lifted, as taught by Li, in order to allow the height to be adjusted on the basis of the height of the users in order to make the experience more comfortable. Note that the lifter would allow the cooking device to be raised such that it is flush with the subsystem.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demou et. al (CN 107125947 A) in view of Riel (US 2015/0013664 A1).
With respect to claim 12 Demou discloses the support subsystem comprises a box body [see annotated Fig. below] removably coupled to the table-top subsystem [the table could be removed from the box body], a cooking chamber [see annotated Fig. below] with an upper opening is formed in the box body.
Demout does not disclose that the modular table system further comprises a cooking covering, and the table-top subsystem and the cooking covering cover the upper opening of the cooking chamber.
Riel discloses a cooking table having a support structure with a box body [reference character 12] containing a heating chamber [reference character 14] with a cooking covering [reference character 42] covering the upper opening of the heating chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the table taught by Demou by including a cooking covering, as taught by Riel, in order to prevent heat from escaping from the cooking chamber during windy or especially cold days.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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 B McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 The limitation “configured to accommodate one or more of the cooking devices” is interpreted as functional in nature where the prior art need only be capable of performing the required function. In this case a person having ordinary skill in the art could clearly place a cutting board, kettle, mixing bowl, induction cooktop, etc. on the partition thereby satisfying the functional limitation of the claim.
2 The limitation “configured to accommodate one or more of the cooking devices” is interpreted as functional in nature where the prior art need only be capable of performing the required function. In this case a person having ordinary skill in the art could clearly place a cutting board, kettle, mixing bowl, induction cooktop, etc. on the partition thereby satisfying the functional limitation of the claim.
3 The limitation “configured to accommodate one or more of the cooking devices” is interpreted as functional in nature where the prior art need only be capable of performing the required function. In this case a person having ordinary skill in the art could clearly place a cutting board, kettle, mixing bowl, induction cooktop, etc. on the partition thereby satisfying the functional limitation of the claim.
4 The limitation “configured to accommodate one or more of the cooking devices” is interpreted as functional in nature where the prior art need only be capable of performing the required function. In this case a person having ordinary skill in the art could clearly place a cutting board, kettle, mixing bowl, induction cooktop, etc. on the partition thereby satisfying the functional limitation of the claim.