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 specification amendment filed 6 June 2026 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.121(b) because: markings do not show all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record dated 16 July 2025.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: planar portion, rounded joint.
The disclosure is objected to because reference character “12” has been used to designate partial cover and partial dome.
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 1,3-7, 15, 16, and 18 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.
The limitation of claim 1 that “the lip protrusion has a half circle shape opposite the lip structure” is led to be indefinite. From line 10 “the lip structure includes a lip protrusion”. As the lip protrusion is part of the lip structure it is unclear how the half circle shape could be opposite the lip structure, which it is a part of.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the planar portion" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the planar portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the planar portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation that the lip protrusion defines a lip radius of curvature does not further limit claim 1 which requires the lip protrusion to have a half circle shape and therefore already must define a lip radius of curvature. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 15, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COLOMBO (IT 202200001802) further in view of Kuriyama (WO 2006080060).
Claim 1: COLOMBO discloses a food cover 1 (partial cover device) for dinnerware for protecting food disposed thereon or therein from foreign particles, the food cover 1 (partial cover device) comprising: a portion 2a (partial dome structure) defining an open bottom and an open side and adapted to be disposed over only a portion of the dinnerware, thereby providing access to a portion of the food disposed on or in the dinnerware, wherein the portion 2a (partial dome structure) comprises at least one outer peripheral wall and a top surface that is coupled to the at least one peripheral outer wall by a rounded joint; and a lip structure extending from a bottom edge of the open bottom of the portion 2a (partial dome structure) and configured to contact a surface supporting the food cover 1 (partial cover device) when the food cover 1 (partial cover device) is in use, wherein the lip structure has an outer end opposite an inner end of the lip structure extending from the bottom edge of the open bottom of the portion 2a (partial dome structure), wherein the food cover 1 (partial cover device) can sit on a plate 3, and wherein and end of the lip structure has a half circle shape (see annotated fig. 2 and 7 below).
COLOMBO does not disclose wherein the lip structure includes a lip protrusion extending vertically upwards from an outer end of the lip structure opposite an inner end of the lip structure extending from the bottom edge of the open bottom of the partial dome structure or the lip protrusion having a half circle opposite the lip structure.
Kuriyama teaches a case having a lid 3 having a lip structure extending from a bottom edge of an open bottom of the lid 3, wherein the lip structure includes a lip protrusion extending vertically upwards from an outer end of the lip structure opposite an inner end of the lip structure extending from the bottom edge of the open bottom of the lid 3, and a tray 2 having a protrusion, wherein the lip structure contacts the interior of the protrusion to engage the tray 2 and lid 3 (see annotated fig. 2A below and fig. 2B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the portion 2a (partial dome structure) such that the lip structure turned up at its end to form a lip protrusion extending vertically upwards from the outer end of the lip structure opposite the inner end of the lip structure and the plate 3 to have a protrusion engageable with the lip structure, as taught by Kuriyama, in order to properly locate the food cover 1 (partial cover device) on the plate 3 and lock the food cover 1 (partial cover device) to the plate 3 such that the food cover 1 (partial cover device) is not accidentally separated from the plate 3 exposing food.
The combination results in the end of the lip structure which is the end of the lip protrusion opposite the lip structure having the half circle shape.
Additionally, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the end of the lip protrusion opposite the lip structure with a half circle shape in order to have no sharp corners and since this would entail a mere change in shape of the lip protrusion and yield only predictable results. "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
No criticality has been established for the shape of the lip protrusion opposite the lip structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
389
531
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
384
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
395
630
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 3: The combination discloses wherein a void or gap in the at least one peripheral outer wall around a perimeter of the portion 2a (partial dome structure) defines the open side (see annotated fig. 2 above).
Claim 5: The combination discloses wherein the top surface extends between different portions of a same peripheral outer wall of the at least one peripheral outer wall, the planar portion of the top surface defining a portion of a circle (see annotated fig. 2 above).
Claim 7: The combination discloses wherein the portion of the circle defined by the planar portion of the top surface includes 55%-75% of an area of a full circle associated with the portion of the circle (see annotated fig. 2 above and fig. 4).
Claim 15: The combination discloses wherein a void or gap in the at least one peripheral outer wall, the top surface, and the rounded joint of the partial dome structure defines the open side (see annotated fig. 2 above).
Claim 16: The combination discloses wherein the lip protrusion defines a lip radius of curvature as it has the half circle shape.
Claim 18: The combination discloses further comprising: a portion 2b (additional cover) rotatably coupled to the portion 2a (partial dome structure), wherein the portion 2b (additional cover), when in a deployed position, and portion 2a (partial dome structure) together are configured to be disposed over the entire dinnerware when the food cover 1 (partial cover device) is in use (see annotated fig. 2 above).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COLOMBO (IT 202200001802) and Kuriyama (WO 2006080060) further in view of Pellegrino (US 20220033166).
Claim 4: The combination discloses wherein a first peripheral outer wall of the at least one peripheral outer wall is configured to define a first angle relative to a surface supporting the food cover 1 (partial cover device) when the food cover 1 (partial cover device) is in use (see annotated fig. 2 & 7 above).
The combination does not disclose a second peripheral outer wall of the at least one peripheral outer wall being configured to define a second angle relative to the surface supporting the partial cover device, the second angle different than the first angle.
Pellegrino teaches a trophy cake cover device 10 having a cover 12 that is shaped as a two-tiered layer cake with bottom layer 14 (first peripheral outer wall) and top layer 16, wherein a bottom layer 14 (first peripheral outer wall) is configured to define a first angle relative to a surface supporting the cover 12 when the cover 12 is in use, and a second peripheral outer wall being configured to define a second angle relative to the surface supporting the cover 12, the second angle different than the first angle (see annotated fig. 1 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the at least one peripheral outer wall to have a bottom layer 14 (first peripheral outer wall), top layer 16, and second peripheral outer wall connecting them, as taught by Pellegrino, in order to cover a two-tiered cake with reduced wasted space.
PNG
media_image4.png
506
533
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotapish (US 20230060827) further in view of Tzifkansky (US 4600117).
Claim 1: Kotapish discloses a first cover section 120 (partial cover device) for dinnerware for protecting food disposed thereon or therein from foreign particles, the first cover section 120 (partial cover device) comprising: a sidewall 128, top 122, and rounded joint, together reading on the partial dome structure, defining an open bottom and an open side and adapted to be disposed over only a portion of the dinnerware, thereby providing access to a portion of the food disposed on or in the dinnerware, wherein the sidewall 128, top 122, and rounded joint (partial dome structure) comprises at least one peripheral outer wall and a top 122 (top surface) that is coupled to the at least one peripheral outer wall by a rounded joint; and a lip structure extending from a bottom edge of the open bottom of the sidewall 128, top 122, and rounded joint (partial dome structure) and configured to contact a surface supporting the partial cover device when the partial cover device is in use, wherein the lip structure includes a flange 129 extending downwardly (see annotated fig. 4 and 7 below).
Kotapish does not disclose wherein the lip structure includes a lip protrusion extending vertically upwards from an outer end of the lip structure opposite an inner end of the lip structure extending from the bottom edge of the open bottom of the partial dome structure of wherein the lip protrusion has a half circle shape opposite the lip structure.
Tzifkansky teaches a food container comprising a bottom 3 and a cover 2, wherein the cover 2 includes a lip structure having a vertical rib 9 extending downwardly and a lip protrusion extending vertically upwards from an outer end of the lip structure (see annotated fig. 2 below and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the lip structure to have a lip protrusion extending vertically upwards from an outer end of the lip structure opposite an inner end of the lip structure extending from the bottom edge of the open bottom of the sidewall 128, top 122, and rounded joint (partial dome structure), as taught by Tzifkansky, in order to reinforce and strengthen the outer end of the lip structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the end of the lip protrusion opposite the lip structure with a half circle shape in order to have no sharp corners and since this would entail a mere change in shape of the lip protrusion and yield only predictable results. "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
No criticality has been established for the shape of the lip protrusion opposite the lip structure.
Additionally, or in the alternative, COLOMBO teaches a food cover 1 for dinnerware for protecting food disposed thereon or therein from foreign particles, the food cover 1 having a lip structure that has an end with a half circle shape (see annotated fig. 2 and 7 above) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the lip protrusion to have a half circle shape opposite the lip structure, as taught by COLOMBO, such that the lip protrusion had no sharp corners which a user could be injured on and which concentrate stresses.
PNG
media_image5.png
321
518
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
430
536
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
594
542
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 3: The combination discloses wherein a void or gap in the at least one peripheral outer wall around a perimeter of the sidewall 128, top 122, and rounded joint (partial dome structure) defines the open side (see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 7 above).
Claim 4: The combination discloses wherein a sidewall 128 (first peripheral outer wall) of the at least one peripheral outer wall is configured to define a first angle relative to a surface supporting the partial cover device when the partial cover device is in use, and a second peripheral outer wall of the at least one peripheral outer wall is configured to define a second angle relative to the surface supporting the first cover section 120 (partial cover device), the second angle different than the first angle (see annotated fig. 4 above).
Claim 5: The combination discloses wherein the top 122 (top surface) extends between different portions of a same peripheral outer wall of the at least one peripheral outer wall, planar portion of the top 122 (top surface) defining a portion of a circle (see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 4 above).
Claim 6: The combination discloses wherein the portion of the circle defined by the planar portion of the top 122 (top surface) is a half-circle relative to a full circle associated with the portion of the circle (see fig. 1 and P. 0071).
Claim 15: The combination discloses wherein a void or gap in the at least one peripheral outer wall, the top 122 (top surface), and the rounded joint of the sidewall 128, top 122, and rounded joint (partial dome structure) defines the open side (see annotated fig. 4 & 7 above).
Claim 16: The combination discloses wherein the lip protrusion defines a lip radius of curvature as it has the half circle shape.
Response to Arguments
The drawing objections in paragraph 3 of office action dated 24 February 2026 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure filed 12 June 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections in paragraphs 6-10 of office action dated 24 February 2026 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims filed 12 June 2026.
Applicant’s arguments, see item 6 page 10, filed 12 June 2026, with respect to 103 in view of Swett (NO 124713) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection relying on Swett (NO 124713) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 ET.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at (571)270-5531. 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.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights