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 .
Specification
The abstract should be in narrative form (emphasis added) and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words (emphasis added) in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is too short and it is one run-on sentence. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, line 1 should be amended to recite --A lid[[Lid]] lifter (10) for a lid (12) of a Dutch oven (14), comprising:--. Claims 2-4 should be amended to begin with --The lid[[Lid]]--. Claim 5 is unclear since it appears to be a method claim, yet it does not recite the word “method” or a positive recitation of a gerund stating a required method step. The claim should be reviewed and amended. Claim 6 should be amended to begin with --A systemThe system--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 USC 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 1 recites the limitation "the opposite end" in line 7 (using the numbering along the left-hand side). Claim 6 recites the limitation "the opposite end" in line 3 of page 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Consequently, claims 2-4, 7 and 8 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as being indefinite since they depend from claims that are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as being indefinite.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 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 USC 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 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Sauter et al. (US 8,783,241 B1) (“Sauter”), alone.
Referring to claims 1, 6 and 8: Sauter teaches a system with a lid 14 of a Dutch Oven (14) and a lid lifter 40 (10), wherein the lid lifter (1) comprises
a handle 40 (the handle also appears to be defined as “anchor leg 48”) (16),
a hook 50 (18) arranged at one end of the handle (16) for lifting the lid (12), and
a screw 46 (22) arranged at the opposite end of the handle (16) for screwing the lid lifter (10) onto a support assembly 30.
While the opposite screw end 46 of the lifter 40 taught by Sauter does indirectly support the lid 14, Sauter does not specifically teach a screw (22) for screwing the lid lifter (10) onto the lid (12), where the lid (12) has a thread (28) for the screw (22). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the screw taught by Sauter to be for screwing the lid lifter onto the lid with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Referring to claim 2: Sauter teaches the handle (16) is rod-shaped (FIG. 1).
Referring to claim 3: Sauter does not specifically teach the handle (16) comprises a wooden material or is made of a wooden material. 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 handle taught by Sauter to comprise a wooden material or to be made of a wooden material with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Referring to claim 4: Sauter teaches the hook (18) and/or the screw (22) comprises a metallic material or is made of a metallic material (claim 6).
Referring to claim 7: Sauter teaches the lid (12) has a loop 52 (25) for the hook (18).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Sauter and in view of Stohl et al. (US 2022/0015569 A1) (“Stohl”).
Sauter teaches use of the lid lifter (10) according to claim 1, optionally for lifting the lid (12) (column 1, lines 5-6; column 2, lines 42-44) as well as for use as a handle of the lid. Sauter does not specifically teach use of the lid lifter (10) as a handle of a lid (12) used as a pan. Stohl teaches a lid lifter for a lid of a Dutch oven and use of the lid as a pan ¶ [0003]. 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 lid taught by Sauter to be usable as a pan as taught by Stohl in order for the user’s benefit of not needing addition equipment to cook food on a flat top surface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mair (US 5,071,182) teaches a lid lifter (Fig. 1) for a lid 54 of a Dutch oven 56 comprising a handle 10, 16 and a hook 24. Gregory (US 8,087,410 B2) teaches a system (FIG. 16) comprising a Dutch oven and a lid 1450 that is placed upside-down.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A LOIKITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. 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.
/Catherine Loikith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
22 July 2026
Prosecution Insights