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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 19, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment filed August 19, 2025, claims 18, 21, and 30 were amended and new claims 32-36 were presented. Claims 18-36 are pending.
The amendments to the claims overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The amendments to the claims overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims have been considered but they are not persuasive for these reasons:
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “Ultimate Dutch Oven and Broth NPL do not teach or provide any reasoning for this step which includes an application of heat and smoke to generate the smoke to the top of the liquid therein and the condensation of steam generated from the liquid and of the smoke with the floor, the sidewall, and the lid of the condenser chamber” (Remarks at pp. 11-12), the examiner disagrees. Ultimate Dutch Oven expressly discloses applying both smoke and heat simultaneously (see e.g., pp. 15-19). Further, the structure of Ultimate Dutch Oven is the same as that claimed, so when the apparatus with food/liquid is applied to heat and smoke, it will generate condensation of steam in the same manner as the claimed apparatus. When a prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process (MPEP 2112.02).
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “neither reference teaches the feature of a lid formed from a condenser material having a different heat transfer rate than one or more material forming the floor and sidewalls. These references do not teach or provide any reasoning for a condenser material of a lid and one or more materials of the floor and the sidewall being provided in a configuration with one another to cause condensation of steam generated from the liquid and of the smoke in the interior cooking region” (Remarks at p. 12), the examiner disagrees. Paci is relied upon to teach a different material for the lid (see rejection below).
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “Notably, Ultimate Dutch Oven explicitly shows application of smoke but is silent on application of heat in a manner to reasonably generate any condensation of steam in a single step as claimed by amended claim 18” (Remarks at p. 12), the examiner disagrees. Ultimate Dutch Oven discloses a liquid in the cooking region, and application of smoke and heat to cook food. The structure of Ultimate Dutch Oven is the same as that claimed, so when the apparatus with food/liquid is applied to heat and smoke, it will generate condensation of steam in the same manner as the claimed apparatus. When a prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process (MPEP 2112.02).
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.
Claims 18-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim 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 18 recites “the floor and the sidewall are formed from one or more materials, and the lid is formed from a condenser material having a different heat transfer rate than the one or more materials forming the floor and the sidewalls.” This is not supported in the specification. The only discussion of materials in the specification is in paragraph [0036], which states “In various embodiments, the sidewall 54, the floor 52, the tube 58, and the lid 70 may be formed from a single material or a combination of materials. Exemplary materials may include ceramic, glass, and/or one or more metals such as stainless steel, aluminum, copper, or cast iron.” There is no discussion of heat transfer rates. The specification does not support the lid being formed from a material having a different heat transfer rate than the material of the floor and sidewalls. A list of possibilities “does not constitute a written description of every species in a genus because it would not ‘reasonably lead’ those skilled in the art to any particular species” (MPEP 2163.05(II), citing Fujikawa v. Wattansin, 93 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). This limitation is new matter.
Claim 34 recites “the floor and sidewall are ach formed of different materials from one another.” Nothing in the specification explains that the floor and sidewall are formed from different materials (see para. [0036]). In fact, each of the figures shows the floor and sidewall formed from the same material (see e.g., Fig. 4; see also 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3)). The claim contains new matter.
Claim 35 recites “the different materials are different metals.” Nothing in the specification explains that the floor and sidewall are formed from different materials, let alone different metals (see para. [0036]). In fact, each of the figures shows the floor and sidewall formed from the same material (see e.g., Fig. 4; see also 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3)). The claim contains new matter.
Claim 36 recites “the condenser material is a glass material, wherein the one or more materials of the floor and sidewall are one or more metal materials, and wherein the glass material has a higher heat transfer rate than the one or more metal materials so as to cause condensation of steam generated from the liquid and of the smoke in the interior cooking region.” The only discussion of materials in the specification is in paragraph [0036], which states “In various embodiments, the sidewall 54, the floor 52, the tube 58, and the lid 70 may be formed from a single material or a combination of materials. Exemplary materials may include ceramic, glass, and/or one or more metals such as stainless steel, aluminum, copper, or cast iron.” The specification does not support the lid being glass and the sidewall and floor being metal. A list of possibilities “does not constitute a written description of every species in a genus because it would not ‘reasonably lead’ those skilled in the art to any particular species” (MPEP 2163.05(II), citing Fujikawa v. Wattansin, 93 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). This limitation is new matter. This limitation is new matter.
Claims 19-36 are also rejected through their dependence on a rejected parent claim (details above).
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Claim 21 recites “the tube provides a smoke passageway between the first opening and the second opening” in lines 2-3. It is unclear whether this is different from the “smoke pathway from the first opening, through the second opening, and into the interior cooking region” already recited in claim 18, or a different feature.
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 (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 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.
Claims 18-25, 27-33, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ultimate Dutch Oven video, retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnuWMPKdJq0, (hereinafter, “Ultimate Dutch Oven”) in view of U.S. Pat. 5,816,139 to Scorta Paci (hereinafter, “Paci”) and Nourishing Chicken Bone Broth in a Slow Cooker, retrieved from https://www.theyummylife.com/Slow_Cooker_Chicken_Broth (hereinafter, “Broth NPL”). (Note – copies of Ultimate Dutch Oven and Broth NPL are attached to the office action dated August 6, 2024).
Regarding claim 18, Ultimate Dutch Oven discloses a method of smoking food with a smoking pot apparatus (see e.g., p. 1), the method comprising: the smoking pot apparatus (see annotated figures from pp. 4-5 below) comprising: a pot having a floor (annotated figures), a sidewall (annotated figures) extending upwardly from the floor to an upward edge (annotated figures), an interior cooking region (annotated figures) formed within the sidewall and above the floor (annotated figures), and a tube (annotated figures) extending through the floor into the interior cooking region (annotated figures), the tube having a first opening adjacent the floor (annotated figures), a second opening adjacent the upward edge (annotated figures), and a height from the first opening to the second opening (height of the tube is defined between the first and second openings, see figures); and a lid (annotated figures) having a domed interior portion (annotated figures) extending to a perimeter edge (annotated figures) that engages with the upward edge of the sidewall of the pot (see pp. 1-2); wherein the height of the tube (height of the tube between first and second openings) and the location of the domed interior portion of the lid above the second opening of the tube (see pp. 1-2) when the perimeter edge of the lid is engaged with the upward edge of the pot (see pp. 1-2) provides a smoke pathway from the first opening, through the second opening, and into the interior cooking region (see pp. 4-5); wherein the floor (annotated figures), the sidewall (annotated figures), and the lid (annotated figures) are formed in a configuration with one another (see annotated figures) to direct smoke to a top of a liquid in the interior cooking region (the interior cooking region directs smoke to a top of a liquid, see annotated figures and pp. 15-19); and wherein the floor (annotated figures) and the sidewall (annotated figures) are formed from one or more materials (see annotated figures), and the material of the lid and the one or more materials of the floor and the sidewall are provided in configuration with one another to cause condensation of steam generated from the liquid and of the smoke in the interior cooking region (the interior cooking region operates to cause condensation of steam, see annotated figures; pp. 15-19); and wherein the smoker chamber (part of interior cooking region) and the condenser chamber (part of interior cooking region) has a combined configuration in the interior cooking region (annotated figures) to impart a smokey flavor to the food (When a prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process, see MPEP 2112.02) by combined smoke effect a combination of (1) the interior cooking region being configured to provide smoke to a top of the liquid therein (When a prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process, see MPEP 2112.02), and (2) the floor and the sidewall being configured to cause condensation of steam generated from the liquid and of the smoke (When a prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process, see MPEP 2112.02); applying a combination of heat and smoke (see e.g., p. 17) to the smoking pot apparatus (pp. 1, 17) to generate both (1) the smoke to the top of the liquid therein with the interior cooking region being configured to direct the smoke to the top of the liquid (When a prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process, see MPEP 2112.02), and (2) the condensation of steam generated from the liquid and of the smoke with the floor, the sidewall, and the lid of the condenser chamber (When a prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process, see MPEP 2112.02).
PNG
media_image1.png
804
1955
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ultimate Dutch Oven Annotated Figures (from pp. 4-5)
Ultimate Dutch Oven does not expressly disclose the lid is formed from a condenser material having a different heat transfer rate than the one or more materials forming the floor and sidewalls.
Paci teaches a similar pot apparatus having a floor, a sidewall, and an interior cooking region (see Fig. 1). Paci teaches a lid that engages with the upward edge of the sidewall of the pot (see Fig. 1). Paci teaches that the lid is formed from glass (col. 2, ll. 43-49). Paci teaches that glass for the lid is preferable because it is transparent and heat-resistant (col. 2, ll. 43-49).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method of Ultimate Dutch Oven to form the lid from glass as taught by Paci for the purpose of providing a lid that is heat-resistant and transparent, as recognized by Paci (col. 2, ll. 43-49), and because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). The smoking pot apparatus of Ultimate Dutch Oven as modified to have a glass lid would have the lid formed from a condenser material having a different heat transfer rate than the one or more materials forming the floor and sidewalls.
Ultimate Dutch Oven as modified above does not expressly disclose cooking food in a first apparatus for an initial period of time; and after the initial period of time, moving the food from the first apparatus to the smoking pot apparatus. Ultimate Dutch Oven does disclose adding chicken or beef broth to the pot (pp. 8-9, 11-14). Ultimate Dutch Oven shows using broth from a can or carton (pp. 8-9, 11-14).
Broth NPL teaches making chicken broth in a slow cooker (pp. 1-2). Broth NPL teaches that making homemade broth in a slow cooker is an effective way to extract nutrients from the chicken bones (p. 5). Broth NPL teaches that broth made in a slow cooker is more nutritious than store bought broth (p. 4). Broth NPL further teaches that homemade broth tastes better, has health benefits, and saves money over store bought broth (p. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method of Ultimate Dutch Oven/Paci to swap the store bought broth with homemade broth made in a slow cooker as taught by Broth NPL such that the broth is first cooked in a slow cooker for a period of time and then moved to the smoking pot for the purpose of using broth that tastes better, has health benefits, and saves money, as recognized by Broth NPL (pp. 2-5)
Regarding claim 19, Ultimate Dutch Oven as modified by Broth NPL already includes the first apparatus comprises a slow cooker (Broth NPL, p. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Ultimate Dutch Oven further discloses the food comprises a liquid (see pp. 8-9, 11-14), the method further comprising: maintaining the liquid at a cooking temperature sufficient to generate and condense steam within the interior cooking region (see e.g., pp. 8-14); and delivering smoke (pp. 15-19), via the smoke pathway (p. 19), from a smoke source positioned below the smoking pot apparatus to a top surface of the liquid (smoke source is wood chips placed below the pot, see pp. 15-19), thereby causing condensation of the steam and the smoke to provide a combined smoke effect within the interior cooking region (see pp. 19-22).
Regarding claim 21, Ultimate Dutch Oven further discloses wherein the tube (annotated figures) provides a smoke passageway between the first opening and the second opening (see annotated figures), wherein the smoke passageway has an inflow maximum cross-sectional area (cross-sectional area at the first opening) between the first opening and the second opening (see annotated figures); wherein the interior cooking region is configured to maintain a liquid at a cooking temperature sufficient to generate and condense steam within the interior cooking region (interior cooking region is capable of maintaining contents at temperature to generate steam), the interior cooking region having a total outflow cross-sectional area (cross-sectional area at the second opening), the total outflow cross-sectional area of the interior cooking region (annotated figures) being less than the maximum inflow cross-sectional area (see annotated figures); wherein the smoke pathway is configured to deliver smoke (pp. 15-23) from a smoke source positioned below the smoking pot apparatus to a top surface of the liquid (pp. 15-23), thereby causing condensation of the steam and the smoke to provide a combined smoke effect within the interior cooking region (p. 19); further comprising maintaining the liquid at a cooking temperature sufficient to generate and condense steam within the interior cooking region (When a prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process, see MPEP 2112.02); and delivering smoke from the smoke source (p. 17) positioned below the smoking pot apparatus to the top surface of the liquid (see e.g., pp. 15-23), thereby causing condensation of the steam and the smoke to provide the combined smoke effect within the interior cooking region (When a prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process, see MPEP 2112.02).
Regarding claim 22, Ultimate Dutch Oven further discloses providing an airspace (airspace formed by interior portion, annotated figures) domed above the second opening of the tube (annotated figures) when the perimeter edge of the lid (annotated figures) engages the upward edge of the pot by the lid having a domed configuration to provide the airspace (see e.g., pp. 1-2).
Regarding claim 23, Ultimate Dutch Oven further discloses providing airflow from the interior cooking region (annotated figures) with one or more vents (annotated figure; p. 7) provided through one or both of the sidewall and the lid (see p. 7) so as to facilitate smoke travel from the first opening of the tube, through the second opening of the tube, and into the interior cooking region (when the pot is placed over a heat source, smoke travels through the first opening, through the second opening, and into the interior cooking region, see e.g., pp. 18-21).
Regarding claim 24, Ultimate Dutch Oven further discloses the sidewall (annotated figures), the floor (annotated figures), and the tube (annotated figures) are formed from a single material (see pp. 1-2).
Regarding claim 25, Ultimate Dutch Oven further discloses the material is cast iron, ceramic, glass, copper, aluminum, or stainless steel (p. 2).
Regarding claim 27, Ultimate Dutch Oven further discloses the tube (annotated figures) is conical (pp. 4-5) so as to provide the first opening (annotated figures) with a first diameter that is greater than a diameter of the second opening (annotated figures).
Regarding claim 28, Ultimate Dutch Oven further discloses maximizing a cooking space within the interior cooking region (annotated figures) by providing the height of the tube (annotated figures) equal to or greater than a height of the sidewall (see p. 3); and providing the second opening (annotated figures) located at the height of the tube (annotated figures) lower than the lid so as to not block smoke into the interior cooking region (see e.g., pp. 1-3).
Regarding claim 29, Ultimate Dutch Oven further discloses providing, with the configuration of the interior cooking region (annotated figures), smoke to a top of a liquid therein (see e.g., pp. 18-19); and causing, with the floor and the sidewall configuration (annotated figures), condensation of steam generated from the liquid and of the smoke so as to provide a combined smoke effect within the interior cooking region (see pp. 18-19; Note – When a prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process, see MPEP 2112.02).
Regarding claim 30, Ultimate Dutch Oven further discloses providing, with the smoke provided to the top of the liquid (see pp. 15-23), a first portion of the combined smoke effect within the interior cooking region (When a prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process, see MPEP 2112.02); and providing, with the condensation of the steam and the smoke, a second portion of the combined smoke effect within the interior cooking region (When a prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process, see MPEP 2112.02).
Regarding claim 31, Ultimate Dutch Oven further discloses the pot is configured to suspend the tube (annotated figures) above a fire (see e.g., p. 17); and suspending the tube above the fire (p. 17).
Regarding claim 32, Ultimate Dutch Oven further discloses the floor and sidewall (annotated figures) are formed of a same material (p. 2).
Regarding claim 33, Ultimate Dutch Oven further discloses the same material is a metal (p. 2).
Regarding claim 36, Ultimate Dutch Oven as modified by Paci already includes the condenser material is a glass material (Paci, col. 2, ll. 43-49), wherein the one or more materials of the floor and sidewall (Ultimate Dutch Oven, annotated figures) are one or more metal materials (Ultimate Dutch Oven, see p. 2), and wherein the glass material has a higher heat transfer rate than the one or more metal materials so as to cause condensation of steam generated from the liquid and of the smoke in the interior cooking region (When a prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process, see MPEP 2112.02).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ultimate Dutch Oven in view of Paci and Broth NPL as applied to claim 18 above, and in further view of KR-20100050688 to Kim et el. (hereinafter, “Kim”).
Regarding claim 26, Ultimate Dutch Oven in view of Paci and Broth NPL does not expressly disclose the tube is straight walled so as to provide the first opening with a first diameter that is equal to a second diameter of the second opening.
Kim teaches a pot having a body that comprises a floor and sidewall and a vent pipe extending upwards from the floor (Fig. 5). Kim teaches that exhaust vent may be a cylindrical shape or a truncated cone shape (Figs. 4-5; p. 3, ll. 13-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pot Ultimate Dutch Oven to make the tube straight walled so as to provide the first opening with a first diameter that is equal to a second diameter of the second opening for at least one of the following reasons: (1) a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of conical and cylindrical shapes in view of Kim (p. 3, ll. 13-16); (2) it would be an obvious change of shape (from conical to cylindrical) and the particular configuration is not significant (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)); and/or (3) there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (first diameter greater than, equal to, or smaller than the second diameter), with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2131(III)).
Conclusion
Note – although art has not been applied to claims 34 and 35, these claims are not indicated as allowable because they lack written description support (see rejection above).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E. PARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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 Jenness can be reached on 571-270-5055. 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.
/LAURA E. PARKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3733