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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1-12, “…demoulding device…” should read “…demolding device…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-7, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jacobson (US 5,191,830).
Regarding claim 1, Jacobson ‘830 teaches (figures 1-4) a demolding device, configured for releasing a cooked food, comprising:
a releasing frame/ upper shaping tray (10) (Col. 5 Line 7), and
a cooking container/lower receiving tray (12) (Col. 5 Line 8), wherein:
the releasing frame/ upper shaping tray (10) comprises a top end/second planar support (42), a bottom end/end opposite top end/second planar support (42) which sits on first planar support (16), and a hollow column/mold cap (34) extending downward from the bottom end and penetrating through the releasing frame in a vertical direction (Col. 5 Line 45; Col. 6 Lines 37-38),
the cooking container/lower receiving tray (12) comprises a container sidewall/inner surface (22a) (Col. 7 Lines 6-7),
the container sidewall/inner surface (22a) comprises an abutted portion (clearly shown in the figure below) which the releasing frame is configured to abut, and
when the releasing frame abuts the abutted portion, a bottommost part/central bottom (36) of the hollow column/mold cap (34) is higher than a bottommost part/circular base (20) of the cooking container (clearly seen in figure 3) (Col. 6 Line 30; Col. 7 Lines 15-16).
PNG
media_image1.png
240
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Jacobson ‘830 teaches (figures 1-4) the demolding device wherein:
a cross-sectional area of the hollow column/mold cap (34) gradually decreases in a direction from the top end of the releasing frame to the bottom end of the releasing frame (clearly seen in figure 3) (Col. 6 Lines 29-31).
Regarding claim 3, Jacobson ‘830 teaches (figures 1-4) the demolding device wherein:
a column sidewall (38) of the hollow column/mold cap (34) is inclined gradually inward from the top end of the releasing frame to the bottom end of the releasing frame (clearly seen in figure 3) (Col. 6 Lines 29-31).
Regarding claim 4, Jacobson ‘830 teaches (figures 1-4) the demolding device wherein:
the hollow column/mold cap (34) has a flange (clearly shown in the figure above) extending outward from a column sidewall (38) of the hollow column/mold cap (34) at the top end (clearly seen in the figure above).
Regarding claim 5, Jacobson ‘830 teaches (figures 1-4) the demolding device wherein:
the releasing frame has a handle/gripping extension (50) (Col. 6 Line 61).
Regarding claim 6, Jacobson ‘830 teaches (figures 1-4) the demolding device wherein:
a bottom surface of the flange is configured to abut a top wall/first planar support (16) of the cooking container (clearly seen in figure above) (Col. 5 Line 45).
Regarding claim 7, Jacobson ‘830 teaches (figures 1-4) the demolding device wherein:
the hollow column/mold cap (34) of the releasing frame/ upper shaping tray (10) is a hollow truncated cone structure (clearly seen in figure 3).
Regarding claim 9, Jacobson ‘830 teaches (figures 1-4) the demolding device wherein:
a height of the hollow column is h,
a depth of the cooking container is A, and
a range of h is (1/3)A ≤ h ≤ (2/3)A (clearly seen in figure 3, height of the hollow column is close to 0.6 a depth of cooking container.
Regarding claim 11, Jacobson ‘830 teaches (figures 1-4) the demolding device wherein:
the hollow column/mold cap (34) of the releasing frame/ upper shaping tray (10) is a hollow truncated cone structure (clearly seen in figure 3).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobson (US 5,191,830) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hauser et al. (US 9,801,389).
Regarding claim 8, Jacobson ‘830 teaches (figures 1-4) the demolding device according to claim 1 but it is silent about the demolding device wherein:
the abutted portion of the cooking container is a recess.
Hauser et al. ‘389 teaches (figures 1-5) a cooking dough tray (10) comprising a rigid or semi-rigid upper frame (12) with openings (13-15) configured to receive bowls or cavities (21-23, 31-33) wherein bowls or cavities abut the recess of the frame (12) (clearly shown in the figure below) (Col. 1 Lines 63-67, Col. 2 Lines 1-10, 33-36; Col. 3 Lines 4-10).
PNG
media_image2.png
261
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 Jacobson ‘830 to incorporate the teachings of Hauser et al. ‘389 to configure the demolding device wherein:
the abutted portion of the cooking container is a recess.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance stability as releasing frame abuts the recess formed on container sidewall.
Claim(s) 10, 12-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobson (US 5,191,830).
Regarding claim 10, Jacobson ‘830 teaches (figures 1-4) a cooking device, comprising the demolding device according to claim 1 but it is silent about the cooking device wherein:
the cooking container is a frying and roasting tray.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to have a cooking container as a frying and roasting tray comprising material which is suitable for frying and roasting purposes. Therefore, 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 Jacobson ‘830 to configure the cooking device wherein:
the cooking container is a frying and roasting tray.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable cooking container to be used for various cooking purposes.
Regarding claim 12, Jacobson ‘830 teaches (figures 1-4) the demolding device according to claim 1 but it is silent about the demolding device wherein:
a height of the hollow column is h,
a depth of the cooking container is A, and
the height h of the hollow column is smaller than (1/3)A.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to have configured the demolding device as needed based on the intended use (Para 0038 of the specification also supports the statement). Therefore, 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 Jacobson ‘830 to configure the demolding device wherein:
a height of the hollow column is h,
a depth of the cooking container is A, and
the height h of the hollow column is smaller than (1/3)A.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would design demolding device for a specific need.
Regarding claim 13, modified Jacobson ‘830 teaches (figures 1-4) the cooking device, wherein:
a cross-sectional area of the hollow column/mold cap (34) gradually decreases in a direction from the top end of the releasing frame to the bottom end of the releasing frame (clearly seen in figure 3) (Col. 6 Lines 29-31).
Regarding claim 14, modified Jacobson ‘830 teaches (figures 1-4) the cooking device, wherein:
a column sidewall (38) of the hollow column/mold cap (34) is inclined gradually inward from the top end of the releasing frame to the bottom end of the releasing frame (clearly seen in figure 3) (Col. 6 Lines 29-31).
Regarding claim 15, modified Jacobson ‘830 teaches (figures 1-4) the cooking device wherein:
the hollow column/mold cap (34) has a flange (clearly shown in the figure below) extending outward from a column sidewall (38) of the hollow column/mold cap (34) at the top end (clearly seen in the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
240
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, modified Jacobson ‘830 teaches (figures 1-4) the cooking device wherein:
the releasing frame has a handle/gripping extension (50) (Col. 6 Line 61).
Regarding claim 17, modified Jacobson ‘830 teaches (figures 1-4) the cooking device wherein:
a bottom surface of the flange is configured to abut a top wall/first planar support (16) of the cooking container (clearly seen in figure above) (Col. 5 Line 45).
Regarding claim 18, modified Jacobson ‘830 teaches (figures 1-4) the cooking device wherein:
the hollow column/mold cap (34) of the releasing frame/ upper shaping tray (10) is a hollow truncated cone structure (clearly seen in figure 3).
Regarding claim 20, modified Jacobson ‘830 teaches (figures 1-4) the cooking device wherein:
a height of the hollow column is h,
a depth of the cooking container is A, and
a range of h is (1/3)A ≤ h ≤ (2/3)A (clearly seen in figure 3, height of the hollow column is close to 0.6 a depth of cooking container.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobson (US 5,191,830) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Hauser et al. (US 9,801,389).
Regarding claim 19, Jacobson ‘830 teaches (figures 1-4) the demolding device according to claim 10 but it is silent about the demolding device wherein:
the abutted portion of the cooking container is a recess.
Hauser et al. ‘389 teaches (figures 1-5) a cooking dough tray (10) comprising a rigid or semi-rigid upper frame (12) with openings (13-15) configured to receive bowls or cavities (21-23, 31-33) wherein bowls or cavities abut the recess of the frame (12) (clearly shown in the figure below) (Col. 1 Lines 63-67, Col. 2 Lines 1-10, 33-36; Col. 3 Lines 4-10).
PNG
media_image2.png
261
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 Jacobson ‘830 to incorporate the teachings of Hauser et al. ‘389 to configure the demolding device wherein:
the abutted portion of the cooking container is a recess.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance stability as releasing frame abuts the recess formed on container sidewall.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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, Joshua J Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
