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. 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. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the tubes, claims 1-21, and specifically tubes on the side surface, at least claim 6, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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. Claim Objections Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “ and an plate welded ”, is a grammatical error. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-21 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 is indefinite for the limitation “a plurality of tubes welded to the bottom surface of the aluminum pot, the plurality of tubes each form a closed passage ..” Claims 2-10 are indefinite via dependency, directly or indirectly, to claim 1. Claim 11 is indefinite for the limitation “ a plurality of tubes welded to the bottom surface of the pot , the plurality of tubes each form closed passages …” Claims 12-21 are indefinite via dependency, directly or indirectly, to claim 11. These limitations of claims 1-21, specifically any reference to tubes, are considered indefinite because the drawings do not show any structure similar to a tube. The specification in paragraph 0012 explains the use of aluminum channels 116 and explains side tubes 130a-130g. A tube in the broadest sense is considered a hollow, usually cylindrical body. A channel in the broadest sense is a route through which anything passes {both definitions are confirmed from dictionary.com}. There is also no indication of how the tubes are closed regarding the specification or drawings. It is therefore understood, that a tube and channel are structurally different, and the application has support for a channel and will therefore be interpreted as such. EXAMINER’S NOTE: in the instance of amending the claims to comply with the specification, double patenting is conceivable , e.g. when considering the scope of claim 1 and 6 together; the scope of claim 1 of issued patent 11844459 would require a double patenting rejectio n . Currently it is deemed that the scope is similar, however the use of tubes and channels have different interpretations. 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 , 3-5 , 7, 10- 11 , 13-15, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang [20080223359] . With respect to claim 1, Huang discloses: A tunnel tube cooking pot comprising: an aluminum pot (300) having a bottom surface and a side surface [see FIG 3 , paragraph 0027 with reference to “ A design of an aluminum cookware with guide fins of a width of 0.08 inch, a gap of 0.15 inch and a height of 0.5 inch results in about 50% cooking time compared with a same size conventional cookware without the exchange channels. ” ] , a plurality of tubes (at 321, also see 112b rejection above for interpretation of tubes) welded (see abstract, and MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims, section I) to the bottom surface of the aluminum pot, the plurality of tubes each form a closed passage (at least on the sides and the fact that channels are located on the bottom surface, and the interpretation regarding the 112b rejection above) so that a hot gas is able to flow through each of the plurality of tubes thereby increasing a surface area on the bottom surface of the aluminum pot and providing greater energy absorption [see FIGs 1-2, paragraph 0030, with reference to “ To have efficient heat exchange in the channels, hot flame must be allowed to flow into channels freely without too much impedance. It is found in that this requirement need to be balanced with the need of enhancement of surface area. To have large surface area enhancement, it is desirable to have dense fins which leads to thinner fins and therefore narrower channel widths . ”] . Huang further discloses: {cl. 3} The tunnel tube cooking pot of claim 1 wherein the aluminum pot has a round bottom surface [see FIGs 1-2, paragraph 0026]. {cl. 4} The tunnel tube cooking pot of claim 3 wherein the plurality of tubes are arranged to extend outward and away from a center of the round bottom surface [see FIG s 1-3, paragraph 0026] . {cl. 5} The tunnel tube cooking pot of claim 1 wherein the plurality of tubes are arranged to extend outward and away from a center of the bottom surface [paragraph 0026] . {cl. 7} The tunnel tube cooking pot of claim 1 wherein the aluminum pot is a square pot with a square bottom surface [see FIG 3, paragraph 0034]. {cl. 10} The tunnel tube cooking pot of claim 1 further comprising: wherein the plurality of tubes increase the surface area on the bottom surface by at least two times the surface area of the bottom surface of the pot [paragraph 0030] . With respect to claim 11, Huang discloses: A tunnel tube cooking pot comprising: a pot (300) having a bottom surface [see FIG 3] ; a plurality of tubes (at 321, also see 112b rejection above for interpretation of tubes) welded (see abstract, and MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims, section I) to the bottom surface of the pot, the plurality of tubes each form closed passages (at least on the sides and the fact that channels are located on the bottom surface, and the interpretation regarding the 112b rejection above) increasing a surface area on the bottom surface of the pot [see FIGs 1-2, paragraph 0030, with reference to “ To have efficient heat exchange in the channels, hot flame must be allowed to flow into channels freely without too much impedance. It is found in that this requirement need to be balanced with the need of enhancement of surface area. To have large surface area enhancement, it is desirable to have dense fins which leads to thinner fins and therefore narrower channel widths . ”] . Huang further discloses: {cl. 13} The tunnel tube cooking pot of claim 11 wherein the pot has a round bottom surface [see FIGs 1-3, paragraph 0026] . {cl. 14} The tunnel tube cooking pot of claim 13 wherein the plurality of tubes are arranged to extend outward and away from a center of the round bottom surface [see FIGs 1-3, paragraph 0026] . {cl. 15} The tunnel tube cooking pot of claim 11 wherein the plurality of tubes are arranged to extend outward and away from a center of the bottom surface [see FIGs 1-3, paragraph 0026] . {cl. 17} The tunnel tube cooking pot of claim 11 wherein the pot is a square pot with a square bottom surface [see FIG 3, paragraph 0034] . {cl. 20} The tunnel tube cooking pot of claim 11 wherein the plurality of tubes increase the surface area on the bottom surface by at least two times the surface area of the bottom surface of the pot [paragraph 0030]. 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, 8, 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang [20080223359], further in view of Jan [20070193575] (Reference 112b rejection above). With respect to claims 2, 8, 12, 18, Huang discloses the invention as substantially claimed, however does not show the alternating tubes with different lengths. Jan makes up for these deficiencies by teaching: {cl. 2} The tunnel tube cooking pot of claim 1 wherein the plurality of tubes (24) include both long tubes and short tubes arranged in an alternating pattern on the bottom surface [see FIG 1 , paragraph 0018 ] . {cl. 8} The tunnel tube cooking pot of claim 7 wherein the plurality of tubes that are all the same length and extend away from a center of the square bottom surface [see FIG 3, paragraph 0018 ] . {cl. 12} The tunnel tube cooking pot of claim 11 wherein the plurality of tubes include both long tubes and short tubes arranged in an alternating pattern on the bottom surface [see FIG 1, paragraph 0018] . {cl. 18} The tunnel tube cooking pot of claim 17 wherein the plurality of tubes that are all the same length and extend away from a center of the square bottom surface [see FIG 3, paragraph 0018] . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the channels of Huang in the arrangement of Jan because Jan arranges heat conducting elements in a different configuration offering the same benefit of heat exchange. Claim (s) 6, 9, 16, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang [20080223359], further in view of Miller et al [ 2569112 ] (Reference 112b rejection above) . With respect to claims 6, 9, 16, 19 and 21, Huang discloses the invention as substantially claimed, however does not show the side tubes . MIller makes up for these deficiencies by teaching: {cl. 6} The tunnel tube cooking pot of claim 1 further comprising: a plurality of side tubes (40a) welded to a side of the aluminum pot; and an aluminum plate welded over the plurality of side tubes [see FIGs 1 and 2, col 3, line 15-46] . {cl. 9} The tunnel tube cooking pot of claim 7 further comprising: a plurality of side tubes (40a) welded to a side of the aluminum pot; and an aluminum plate welded over the plurality of side tubes [see FIGs 1 and 2, col 3, line 15-46] . {cl. 16} The tunnel tube cooking pot of claim 11 further comprising: a plurality of side tubes (40a) welded to a side of the pot; and a plate welded over the plurality of side tubes [see FIGs 1 and 2, col 3, line 15-46] . {cl. 19} The tunnel tube cooking pot of claim 17 further comprising: a plurality of side tubes welded (40a) to a side of the pot; and an plate welded over the plurality of side tubes [see FIGs 1 and 2, col 3, line 15-46] . {cl. 21} The tunnel tube cooking pot of claim 11 further comprising: a plurality of side tubes (40a) welded to a side of the pot; and a plate welded over the plurality of side tubes [see FIGs 1 and 2, col 3, line 15-46] . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Huang to include the side channels as taught by Miller because Miller provides side channels to increase heating capabilities. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mandil [D774350] is considered pertinent art with regard to figure 1 that has similar arrangement as claimed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT AVINASH A SAVANI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3762 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday thru Friday 8am-4pm. 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Hoang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-6460 . 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. /AVINASH A SAVANI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 3/26/2026