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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for the following reasons:
Regarding Figs. 3 and 4, the “connecting hole” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Fig. 5 fails to show the rail grooves 1211 and entirety of the adjusting arm as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Applicant is kindly requested to provide an illustration like Figs. 3 and 4 illustrating the adjusting arm within the cross section, and showing the full length of the rail grooves in Fig. 5 rather than a partial view.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. No new matter should be entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 26 of the Specification discloses, “the first grill unit 11 is an upper baking seat, and the second grill unit 12 is a lower baking seat.” This is inconsistent with the drawings and remainder of the disclosure. The first grill unit (11) should be bottom baking seat, and second grill unit (12) should be top baking seat.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation in lines 1-2, “a second grill unit pivoted to the first grill unit,” is understood to mean the first and second grill units are pivotably attached. Applicant is kindly recommended to amend the limitation to read “pivotably attached” (or the like) to make clear it is relating to the nature of their attachment, rather than a function of the structure.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is: the adjusting member in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding Claim 1, the claimed limitation “adjusting member” does not provide sufficient structure to perform the claimed function and must rely on the Specification to disclose further structure that will perform the recited function. The Specification discloses, “the adjusting member may be a knob or an adjusting arm.” [Para. 16] Accordingly, the adjusting member will be understood to describe a knob, adjusting arm and any equivalents thereof.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5, the limitation, “when a pattern on a surface of the second baking plate is in axial symmetry and the adjusting member drives the connecting column to rotate by 180°, the second baking plate moves up or down by the height relative to the second housing; and when the pattern on the surface of the second baking plate is in central symmetry and the adjusting member drives the connecting column to rotate by 90°, the second baking plate moves up or down by the height relative to the second housing,” is unclear because there is no appreciable correlation between the baking pattern symmetry, and whether rotation of the adjusting column moves the baking plate up or down. Rotation of the adjusting member will necessarily drive vertical movement of the second baking plate and is unaffected by the type of baking pattern, and degree of rotation. As no further disclosure besides substantially verbatim support is provided in the Speciation it is unclear what exactly is claimed beyond that “the positions of the patterns of the baking pans are kept consistent.”. (para. 30) In the interest of compact prosecution, this limitation will be construed to merely require that the second baking plate is non-rotatably attached to the connecting column such that the top and bottom plate remain complementary/interlocking after movement of the second baking plate.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (US 2018/0078092).
Regarding Claim 1, Liu discloses A height-adjustable baking device [Fig. 4, para.42] (Examiner Note: Liu discloses a height-adjustable 2-sided heating pan for making pancakes, it is understood to disclose a height-adjustable baking-device), comprising a first grill unit [Bottom part 410, Fig. 4] and a second grill unit [Top part 110, Fig. 4] (Examiner Note: Liu discloses, “[h]eating elements 001 is integrated in the top heating plate 112 (as shown in FIG. 5.1) and in the bottom part 410,” and thus the top and bottom part are construed as grill units. (Para. 46)) pivoted [Hinge 210, Fig. 4, para. 46] to the first grill unit (Examiner Note: Liu discloses, “[t]he hinge 210 is the joint of the top part 110 and bottom part 410 of the two-side heating fry pan, and thus discloses this limitation.), the second grill unit comprising a second housing [Top part 110, Fig. 4], and a second baking plate [Top heating plate 112, Fig. 5.2 (a)] movably mounted in the second housing (Examiner Note: Liu discloses, “The top heating plate 112 is not bonded to the top part 110. It can be moved along the vertical direction of the top part 110 by screwing up/down,” by the pressing assembly 500. (Para. 46)) and facing the first grill unit [Fig. 4, para. 46],
wherein the second grill unit further comprises a connecting column [Connecting Column, Annotated Fig. 5.1] and an adjusting member [Adjusting member, Annotated Fig. 5.1] (Examiner Note: Liu is construed to disclose an adjusting member consisting of the knob-handle fixed to the pressing screw (501a), and a connecting column where the first end is the ram of the pressing screw fixed to the top heating plate (112), and second end is the threaded column portion of the pressing screw in threaded engagement with the ram. The knob-handle is an equivalent structure because it performs the identical claimed function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result, and thus discloses this limitation.);
a first end portion of the connecting column is connected with the second baking plate [First End, Annotated Fig. 5.1], so that relative positions between the connecting column and the second baking plate remain unchanged [Paras. 46-47] (Examiner Note: Liu discloses a pressing assembly (500) comprising a pressing screw (i.e. Second end) with knob handle (i.e. Adjusting member) in threaded engagement with a ram (i.e. First end) connected to the top heating plate that adjusts the size of the cooking space by moving the vertical position of the top plate. As the first end of the connecting column is fixed to the cooking plate, it maintains the same relative position with the baking plate, and thus discloses this limitation);
a second end portion of the connecting column is screwed with the second housing [Second End, Annotated Fig. 5.1] (Examiner Note: The second end of the connecting column is screwed into the second support rack (501b) that is part of the second housing, and thus discloses this limitation.), and the connecting column is movable relative to the second housing along a vertical rotation direction [Paras. 46-47] (Examiner Note: As the vertical rotation direction is understood as the vector direction of the applied rotation, this limitation merely requires the connecting columns can move up or down relative to the second housing. As discussed above, Liu discloses a first end that maintains a fixed relative position with the second baking plate that is moveably mounted on the second housing, and thus necessarily the connecting column must also moves relative to the second housing. As the first and second end have a complementary threaded engagement, then the second end would also move relative to the second housing, but in a direction opposite to the second baking plate and first end. Accordingly, Liu discloses this limitation.); and
the adjusting member is arranged on the second housing [Top part 100, Annotated Fig. 5.1] (Examiner Note: The knob-handle is connected to the support rack (501b) that is part of the second housing, and thus understood to be arranged on the housing.) and engaged with a tail end of the second end portion of the connecting column [Second end, Annotated Fig. 5.1] (Examiner Note: The knob-handle of the pressing screw is integral with the second end of the connecting column, and thus necessarily engaged with the tail end of the connecting column.) so as to control the connecting column to rotate through the adjusting member (Examiner Note: As the immediate limitation can be construed to require that rotation of the connecting column is provided via (i.e. through) the adjustment means, rather that physically travel through the claimed structure, Liu is understood to disclose this limitation as the adjustment means controls the rotation of the connecting column.), so that the connecting column drives the second baking plate to move up or down by a height relative to the second housing. [Paras. 46-47] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Liu discloses that the size of the cooking space is controlled by the adjusting member that drives the connecting column to move the relative height of the top cooking plate within the top part of the housing and thus discloses this limitation.)
PNG
media_image1.png
541
689
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Liu discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, Liu further discloses wherein the second end portion of the connecting column [Second end, Annotated Fig. 5.1] is screwed with the second housing through thread grooves and thread ridges. [Paras. 46-47] (Examiner Note: The limitation, “thread grooves and ridges,” is construed to merely require male and female threading to allow for threaded engagement between the claimed components. Accordingly, as the second end of the connecting column is a screw, and the support rack is configured for threaded engagement with the second end of the connecting column, Liu is understood to disclose thread ridges.)
Regarding Claim 3, Liu discloses all the limitations of Claim 2, Liu further discloses wherein an outer surface of the second end portion of the connecting column is provided with the thread ridges [Second end, Annotated Fig. 5.1] (Examiner Note: As discussed in Claim 2 above, the second end of the connecting column is a screw and thus has thread ridges (i.e. male screw thread).); and the second housing is provided with a fixing member [Support rack 501b, Annotated Fig. 5.1] forming a hollow sleeve (Examiner Note: As a hollow sleeve is understood as a tubular structure with an internal cavity, the support rack (501b) of Liu discloses this limitation.), and an inner surface of the hollow sleeve of the fixing member [Support rack 501b, Annotated Fig. 5.1] is provided with the thread grooves (Examiner Note: As discussed in Claim 2 above, the support rack is configured for threaded engagement with the screw (second end of connecting column) and thus discloses thread grooves (i.e. female screw thread).)
Regarding Claim 6, Liu discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, Liu further discloses wherein the first grill unit comprises a first housing [Annotated Fig. 4] (Examiner Note: Liu is construed to disclose a first grill unit with a housing comprising the bottom part (410) with heating elements (001).), and a first baking plate [First Baking Plate, Annotated Fig. 4] (Examiner Note: As the bottom wall of bottom part (410) is a plate shape structure mounted to a heating element to allow for baking of a pancake, it is understood to disclose a first baking plate.) fixedly mounted on an inner side of the first housing and facing the second grill unit [Annotated Fig. 4] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, where the bottom wall of the bottom part (410) is construed as a baking plate, Liu discloses this limitation as the first baking plate is mounted to the inner side of the first housing.) , and a periphery of the first baking plate is provided with a side wall [Side walls of bottom part 410, Annotated Fig. 4] (Examiner Note: Liu discloses curved sidewalls formed at the end of the first baking plate to provide for the cooking cavity, and thus discloses sidewalls in the periphery of the first baking plate.) , so that the first baking plate and the second baking plate form a baking space. (Examiner Note: Liu discloses the, “cooking space, which is the distance between the top heating plate 112 and the bottom wall of the bottom part 410, is adjusted by screwing up or down the pressing screw 501a.” (Para. 47) As the bottom wall of the bottom part (410) is construed as the first baking plate, Liu discloses this limitation.)
PNG
media_image2.png
425
1024
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Liu discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, Liu further discloses wherein the adjusting member is an adjusting arm [Adjusting arms, Annotated Fig. 5.1 (below)] extending from the connecting column out of the second housing along any direction (Examiner Note: As the handles of the knob can be understood as adjusting arms, Liu discloses adjusting arms extending from the connecting column (they are integral with second end of connecting column) extending perpendicular to the connecting column, and thus discloses this limitation.), and opposite sides of the second housing are provided with a rail groove [Thread Grooves, Annotated Fig. 5.1] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, the support rack 501(b) is part of the secondary housing and has grooves on opposite sides for threaded engagement with the connecting column, and thus discloses this limitation).
PNG
media_image3.png
576
564
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Liu discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, Liu further discloses wherein the adjusting arm extends from the connecting column perpendicularly out of a side of the second housing. [Annotated Fig. 5.1] (Examiner Note: Liu is understood to disclose a knob comprising 2 adjusting arms extending perpendicular to connecting column, out of the top side of the second housing, and thus discloses this limitation.)
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guo et al. (CN 211380923)
Regarding Claim 4, Liu discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Liu does not disclose wherein a side of the second baking plate facing away from the first grill unit is provided with a snap-fit member, and the first end portion of the connecting column is movably connected with the snap-fit member. (Examiner Note: Liu discloses a height-adjustable baking device where the first end of the connecting column is fixedly connected with the second baking plate and thus does not disclose a moveable connection between the 2 components.)
However, Guo teaches wherein a side of the second baking plate facing away from the first grill unit is provided with a snap-fit member, and the first end portion of the connecting column is movably connected with the snap-fit member. [Figs. 4, 6, paras. 14, 39] (Examiner Note: Guo teaches a height adjustable baking device where, “the third connecting piece (34) is provided with a slot (35), which is engaged with the fourth connecting shaft (46) for a snap-fit arrangement.” (Para. 14) The snap-fit arrangement allows the user to lock/unlock the scissor the lift to adjust the height with the ability to lock it at the desired height. (Para. 39))
Guo is in the same field of invention as the application because they are both related to height-adjustable baking devices, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Guo with the device taught in Liu to provide a moveable fixed connection with the second baking plate. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Guo could be combined with Liu with a reasonable degree of success as they are both related to height-adjustable baking devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Guo to provide a moveable fixed connection between the second baking plate and connection column. This type of connection allows for easy assembly and replaceability of parts while still providing a fixed cooking space height during operation. Accordingly, Claim 4 is rejected as obvious over Liu in view of Guo.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Klebanov (US 2023/0090360)
Regarding Claim 5, Liu discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first end portion of the connecting column [First end, Annotated Fig. 5.1] is fixedly connected with the second baking plate [Para. 46] (Examiner Note: Liu discloses that the first end is fixed to the second baking plate.); when the adjusting member [Adjusting Member, Annotated Fig. 5.1] drives the connecting column [Second end, Annotated Fig. 5.1] to rotate (Examiner Note: Liu discloses the pressing screw (501a) rotates to drive the vertical displacement of the second baking plate (112). As the screw portion of the pressing column is interpreted as part of the connecting column, Liu is understood to teaching the adjusting member driving rotation of the connecting column.) by 180° (Examiner Note: As the second end of the connecting column is a screw, it can rotate by any amount to drive displacement and thus discloses 180 degrees of rotation), the second baking plate moves up or down by the height relative to the second housing [Paras. 46-47]; and when the adjusting member [Adjusting Member, Annotated Fig. 5.1] drives the connecting column [Second end, Annotated Fig. 5.1] to rotate by 90° (Examiner Note: As discussed above, the second end of the connecting column is a screw, so it can rotate by any amount to drive displacement and thus discloses 90 degrees of rotation), the second baking plate moves up or down by the height relative to the second housing [Paras. 46-47]. (Examiner Note: Noting the 112(b) rejection above, Liu is understood to disclose a height adjustable baking device where the first end of the connecting column is fixedly attached for non-rotational vertical displacement of the second (top) baking plate. The second of the connecting column is a pressing screw connected with the adjusting means and thus provides rotation of the second end of the connecting column through the adjusting means to drive displacement of the first end of the connecting column. Accordingly, Liu is understood to disclose non-rotational vertical displacement between the baking plates through rotation of the connecting column (at least a portion) but does not disclose a pattern on the baking plate.)
Liu does not disclose a pattern on a surface of the second baking plate is in axial symmetry and the pattern on the surface of the second baking plate is in central symmetry. (Examiner Note: Although Liu does not disclose a baking plate pattern, since it provides non-rotational vertical displacement of the baking sheet, it will maintain symmetry between the baking plate patterns at any position.)
However, Klebanov teaches a pattern on a surface of the second baking plate is in axial symmetry and the pattern on the surface of the second baking plate is in central symmetry. [Para. 23] (Examiner Note: Klebanov teaches a waffle maker where the, “top plate 102A and the bottom plate 102B may be complimentary, such that the top plate 102A and the bottom plate 102B may interface. The top plate 102A and the bottom plate 102B may be configured in a number of embodiments to facilitate a complimentary interfacing of the two plates 102A/102B. In an embodiment, the top plate 102A and the bottom plate 102B are partially or completely isometric (for example, having the same geometries).” (Para. 23) As complementary isometric geometries would make a symmetric baking pattern, it is understood to teach this limitation.)
Klebanov is in the same field of invention as the application because they are both related to height adjustable cooking appliances, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Klebanov with the device taught in Liu to configure the device to make waffles. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Klebanov could be combined with Liu with a reasonable degree of success as they are both related to height-adjustable cooking appliances. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the waffle-iron pattern taught in Klebanov to configure the device to make waffles instead of pancakes. Accordingly, Claim 5 is rejected as obvious over Liu in view of Klebanov.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Rosset et al. (US 2008/0245241)
Regarding Claim 7, Liu discloses all of the limitations of Claim 6.
Liu does not disclose wherein a height of the side wall is equal to the height by which the second baking plate moves up or down. (Examiner Note: As discussed in Claim 6 above, Liu discloses a sidewall on the periphery of the first baking plate, and control of the distance between the top and bottom heating plates but does not specifically disclose the height of the sidewall equal to the displacement of the second baking plate.)
However, Rosset teaches wherein a height of the side wall [Outer periphery 12, Fig. 1] is equal to the height by which the second baking plate moves up or down. [Paras.22, 26-30] (Examiner Note: Rosset discloses a waffle iron with baking sub-assemblies 2 (top) and 3 (bottom) that form a variable volume cooking space as they rise with the cooking dough. Rosset further teaches the lower subassembly has an outer periphery (12) that interlocks with the outer peripheral wall (13), “such that the spread between this peripheral wall and the corresponding peripheral element remains virtually constant irrespective of the position of the two baking sub-assemblies 2, 3 between their proximate closed and spread closed positions. ” (Para. 30) In order to maintain a constant spread between the plates, the peripheral wall height must be the same amount as the distance travelled by the baking plates, and thus Rosset is understood to teach this limitation.)
Rosset is in the same field of invention as the application because they are both related to height-adjustable baking devices, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Rosset with the device taught in Liu to prevent food overflow. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Rosset could be combined with Liu with a reasonable expectation of success because they are both related to height-adjustable baking devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Rosset because the moving peripheral wall prevents food overflow, reducing food waste and cleaning required after each use. Accordingly, Claim 7 is rejected as obvious over Liu in view of Rosset.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Kim et al. (KR 100928141)
Regarding Claim 8, Liu discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the adjusting member is a knob [Knob-handle of Adjusting Member, Annotated Fig. 5.1]
Liu does not disclose the knob comprises a connecting hole, the connecting hole has a depth equal to the height and has a same shape as a cross section of the tail end of the second end portion of the connecting column, and the tail end of the second end portion of the connecting column is inserted into and engaged with the connecting hole. (Examiner Note: Liu discloses a connection hole in the support rack (501b) that is the same cross section as the second end of the connecting column and engaged with the tail end, but does not disclose a knob comprising a connecting hole and an internal recess for receiving the connecting column.)
However, Kim teaches the knob comprises a connecting hole [Internal cavity of Lid Handle 310, Fig. 3], the connecting hole has a depth equal to the height and has a same shape as a cross section of the tail end of the second end portion of the connecting column [Control unit 331, Fig. 3], and the tail end of the second end portion of the connecting column is inserted into and engaged with the connecting hole. [p. 4 para. 2] (Examiner Note: Kim teaches a pressing plate (330) connected to a lid handle (310) that, “can be moved up and down by driving the lid handle (310).” Kim further teaches a, “threaded adjustment part (331) is formed protruding from one side of the upper center of the pressing plate (330). At this time, a female screw thread corresponding to the screw thread formed on the adjustment part (331) of the pressing plate (330) is further formed on one side of the inside of the lid handle (310).” (p. 4 para. 2) As the threaded adjustment part is received in the body of the lid handle (310) and has a cavity of the same cross section and height as the connecting column (the threaded adjustment part in this case), it is understood to teach a knob with the connecting hole as claimed.)
Kim is in the same field of invention as the application because they are both related to height-adjustable cooking devices, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Kim with the device taught in Liu to improve user ergonomics of the device. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Kim could be combined with Liu with a reasonable expectation of success because they are both related to height-adjustable cooking devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the internally recessed knob taught in Kim because it provides improved ergonomics for the user such that the knob can be easily grasped and rotated without risk of the connecting column pinching or poking the user. Accordingly, Claim 8 is rejected as obvious over Liu in view of Kim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Michael Chambers whose telephone number is (571)272-2614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm.
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 Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/J.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
