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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I in the reply filed on 3/11/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/11/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in line 1 delete “appliance” and insert “apparatus” for consistency.
In the last line before “wall” insert “at least one side” for consistency with line 5.
Regarding claim 2, in line 3 insert “at least one side” before “wall”.
Regarding claim 3, in line 3 delete “at least one of”.
Regarding claim 4, in line 4 before “two support elements” insert “at least” for consistency with line 2.
Regarding claim 5, in line 2 delete “device” and insert “apparatus” for consistency.
Regarding claim 8, in line 3 delete “arms” and insert “arm” for consistency with line 2.
In line 3 after “chute” delete “whose bottom” and insert “having a bottom that”.
Regarding claim 9, in lines 3-4 amend “Hydroxy-Alkyl-Cellulose” to “hydroxy-alkyl-cellulose”.
Further regarding claims 2-9, the term “Apparatus” in line 1 of each claim should be amended to “The apparatus” to place the claims in better form.
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 2 and 4-5 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.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations “typically equal to 9 mm” and “typically equal to 3 mm” render the claim indefinite since they are the narrow ranges for the broad ranges “greater than or equal to 6 mm” and “between 2 and 4 mm”, respectively. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the container preferably being transparent” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the “transparent” feature is actually required. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 5 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uhrig et al. (FR 2897521 A1) in view of Aubin (US 2022/0225822 A1).
Citations to Uhrig et al. are taken form the EPO translation provided with the Office Action of 1/13/2026.
Regarding claim 1, Uhrig et al. teaches an apparatus for cooking or heating food (page 1) comprising a container 8 designed to receive said food, a reservoir 3 disposed beneath said container and suitable for receiving a combustion liquid such as ethanol, and a holding support 1,4,5 for holding said container and reservoir, said container comprising a bottom 9 and at least one side wall (figures 1-2; pages 3-4).
Uhrig et al. does not teach the appliance being characterized in that the thickness of the bottom measured at the center of the bottom is at least twice as great as the smallest thickness measured on the wall.
Aubin teaches a cooking utensil comprising a bottom wall thickness that is at least twice that of the side wall (figure 5; paragraph 11), where the ratio between the wall thicknesses improves homogeneity and preheating properties while limiting the weight of the utensil (paragraphs 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the container of Uhrig et al. such that the bottom is at least twice as thick as the side wall since the prior art recognizes such a feature for cooking vessels, and in order to similarly facilitate uniform heat distribution while minimizing added weight.
Regarding claim 2, Uhrig et al. does not teach the bottom thickness greater than or equal to 6 mm and the wall thickness between 2 and 4 mm.
Aubin teaches bottom wall 21 has a thickness of 6 mm and side wall 31 has a thickness of 2 mm (paragraph 61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the container of Uhrig et al. to have the claimed thicknesses for the same reasons stated for claim 1, since there is no evidence of record indicating criticality or unexpected results associated with the features, and since the values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as heating characteristics and heat distribution.
Regarding claim 3, Uhrig et al. teaches container 8 comprises circular stop 10 (shoulder) and the holding support 4 comprises centering plate 6 having circular opening 7 (bearing surface) that retains the container 8 by the circular stop 10 (figures 1-2; page 3).
Regarding claim 4, Uhrig et al. teaches three upwardly extending feet 5 (support elements) in relation to the bearing surface formed by plate 6 with hole 7 (figure 2). Therefore, the structure is construed to read on “each support element comprising…bearing surface”. The holding support comprises a free space between the support elements 5 configured to render the container visible over its entire length (figure 1). The container can be made from glass (page 5), known to be transparent.
Regarding claim 6, Uhrig et al. teaches reservoir 3 is wider than it is deep (figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 9, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches an apparatus comprising the claimed structures. It is noted that claim 1 recites the reservoir is “suitable for receiving a combustion liquid” i.e., “capable of” receiving the liquid, but does not actually require the combustion liquid to be present in the apparatus. Likewise, claim 9 does not require the presence of the liquid, and only recites the composition of the liquid that the reservoir is “suitable for receiving”. Since the reservoir 3 of Uhrig et al. is capable of receiving the claimed combustion liquid, the reference is construed to read on the claim.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uhrig et al. in view of Aubin as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Probst et al. (FR 2880250 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Uhrig et al. does not teach the at least two support elements are inclined upwards towards the interior of the apparatus.
Probst et al. teaches a cooking apparatus for cooking food with burning ethanol (paragraph 4), the apparatus comprising container 1, ethanol reservoir 4, and holding support 2 for holding the container using bearing surface 5 of the container shoulder 9, where the support comprises at least two upwardly extending support elements 6 that are inclined upwards towards the interior of the apparatus for “better overall stability” (figures 1-2; paragraph 6 page 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Uhrig et al. such that the at least two support elements are inclined upwards towards the apparatus interior since the prior art recognizes such a structure for an ethanol burning cooking apparatus, since there is no evidence of unexpected results associated with the structure, and in order to similarly provide “better overall stability” such that the risk of spilling is minimized.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uhrig et al. in view of Aubin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MacMillan (US 1,437,812).
Regarding claim 7, Uhrig et al. does not teach the reservoir has a protuberance extending upwards from the bottom of the reservoir.
MacMillan teaches a heating apparatus (page 1 lines 8-9) comprising a burner 23 for holding alcohol fuel, where the burner is shaped as “an annular trough…to give proper distribution of heat” (figure 4; column 2 lines 15-20). The center of the burner formed by the trough is construed to be “a protuberance extending upwards from the bottom of the reservoir”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Uhrig et al. such that the reservoir is shaped as an annular trough, thereby comprising an upwardly extending central protuberance, since the prior art recognizes such a structure for ethanol burners, and in order to provide uniform distribution of heat such that localized hotspots are avoided.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uhrig et al. in view of Aubin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Garrigan (US 846,299).
Regarding claim 8, Uhrig et al. does not teach the reservoir is fixed to the holding support by at least one arm, and at least one of said at least one arm comprises a chute having a bottom that is inclined towards the reservoir.
Garrigan teaches an apparatus for heating beverages (page 1 lines 10-13), where the apparatus comprises a reservoir 11 for holding alcohol as fuel (figure 1; page 1 lines 40-45 and 75-79). The reservoir is mounted in an outer tube 15 such that the size of the flame can be regulated by turning the tube 15 (page 1 lines 46-52), the reservoir supported by socket member 17 comprising spring 18 having a U shape, on leg thereof being secured to wall 9 and the other leg secured to the socket member (page 1 lines 53-63). The structure is shown to form a “chute” having a bottom that is inclined towards the reservoir at one arm of the spring 18 (figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Uhrig et al. such that the reservoir is fixed to the holding support by at least one arm comprising a chute having a bottom that is inclined towards the reservoir since the prior art recognizes such a structure for ethanol fuel reservoirs, and in order to allow for interchangeability of the reservoir and/or control over the size and intensity of the flame.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0338. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571)-270-3475. 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.
/BRYAN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights